Oral
Answers to
Questions

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

The Secretary of State was asked—

Losing Loved Ones Overseas: Support

Antony Higginbotham: What support her Department offers to people who lose loved ones overseas.

Amanda Milling: Losing a loved one is always extremely difficult, particularly if it happens overseas. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office supports about 4,000 families affected by death abroad annually. Consular staff work tirelessly to provide information on local laws and systems, and offer tailored support to British people and their families in order to make arrangements.

Antony Higginbotham: In my constituency, we have sadly had two recent and high-profile cases of families losing a loved one abroad, including Susan and John Cooper in Egypt, and more recently Kelsey Devlin in Pakistan. Will my right hon. Friend look into those two cases to see whether there is anything further that the Foreign Office can do in order that the families can finally get the answers they need so that they can grieve?

Amanda Milling: May I first offer my deepest sympathies to my hon. Friend’s constituents following the deaths of their loved ones? Officials continue to support Mr and Mrs Cooper’s family and are working with Her Majesty’s Coroner and Egyptian authorities to enable the inquest to take place as soon as possible. My officials are also supporting Ms Devlin’s family, and will assist them in reporting their concerns surrounding this tragic case to the police in Pakistan. I would also like to offer to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these two cases.

Jim Shannon: Does the Minister agree that although charities such as the Kevin Bell Repatriation Trust in Northern Ireland do a tremendous job in assisting with complex repatriation, there is a greater role and need for a Government-led repatriation section to be established?

Amanda Milling: As I said, FCDO consular staff provide assistance to about 4,000 British families a year. The purpose of the assistance is to provide tailored support depending on families’ particular needs.

Palestinian Authority: ODA

John Howell: What steps she is taking to ensure that official development assistance to the Palestinian Authority supports the peace process.

James Cleverly: Development programmes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories work to preserve the prospect of a negotiated two-state solution and simultaneously to improve the lives of Palestinians, in line with the UK’s long-standing approach to the middle east peace process. Although the UK will no longer provide direct funding to the Palestinian Authority, we understand the importance of capacity building of Palestinian institutions.

John Howell: Earlier this year, the long-awaited EU review into the Palestinian Authority’s school curriculum was published, and it confirmed numerous examples of antisemitism. I note the Minister’s recent announcement that the UK is no longer funding Palestinian teachers to draft and deliver this curriculum, but will he ensure that any further UK support to Palestinian education is conditional on a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism, and that that is shown at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East?

James Cleverly: I assure my hon. Friend that the UK Government take a zero-tolerance approach to anti- semitism, wherever it is. The reduction in funding to the Palestinian Authority was in direct response to the official development assistance prioritisation review, which was itself in response to the economic constraints driven by covid. We do, however, continue to support the Palestinians through the UNRWA. We will ensure that, as we have done, we continue to press for that education curriculum to be devoid of any examples of antisemitism.

Tony Lloyd: I obviously totally agree with bringing pressure to bear on issues such as antisemitism. Nevertheless, the humanitarian crisis that exists in Gaza in particular ought to shock the world, with a lack of access to clean water and of proper education, particularly for young girls and women in Gaza. As a country, we still ought to support the provision of those things. Can the Minister give us a clear understanding of when that assistance will return, because it matters?

James Cleverly: As I said, the UK continues to support UNRWA, which does fantastic work in both the west bank and Gaza. On my recent trip to Egypt, I spoke with Egyptian officials about the work that they had done to help to support Gaza after the conflict. The best thing that we can all do for the people of Gaza, the OPTs and the wider region is to push for a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution. That will remain the foundation stone of the UK’s policy in the region.

Chris Law: I welcome the new Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and I hope that she has a long and welcome time in that place.
How can this Government be serious about supporting the peace process and striving for reconciliation when they are cutting aid spending by 71%? With further deeply damaging cuts expected in tomorrow’s Budget and spending review, does the Minister not see that slashing the aid budget fundamentally undermines our national security as well as being against our national interest?

James Cleverly: I remind the House that because of covid this country experienced the worst economic contraction in three centuries, and it was absolutely right that we responded to that. We remain, in both absolute and percentage terms, one of the most generous aid donors in the world. We are proud of that record, as I and my right hon. Friends in Government have said. We aim to return to 0.7% as soon as the fiscal situation allows.

Economic and Security Ties with Allies

James Grundy: What diplomatic steps her Department is taking to strengthen economic and security ties with international allies to help challenge hostile actors.

Elizabeth Truss: We are deepening our economic and security ties with allies, including the United States, members of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and India. We need to win the battle for economic influence through free enterprise and economies based on democracy.

James Grundy: Boosting our economic ties with India could provide opportunities for businesses in my constituency of Leigh and across the UK. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that she will do everything she can to turbo-charge that relationship?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I was in New Delhi and Mumbai last week doing just that. India is a key strategic partner for the United Kingdom. It is the world’s largest democracy. There are huge opportunities. We are shortly about to launch trade talks with India and we are working to increase two-way investment flows.

Lisa Nandy: I welcome the Foreign Secretary to her role and congratulate her on becoming the second woman in history to hold the post. I think I speak for Labour Members when I say that we look forward to welcoming the third. The Foreign Secretary is right to make delivering build back better a priority. COP26 will fail without a commitment to clean and reliable infrastructure in the developing world. We will never be taken seriously in Beijing if we do not claw back some of the influence we have lost in the world. She is right to identify that being a pushover with the Treasury does nothing for our national interest and nothing for our national security. However, the non-official development aid budget has been halved—ODA spending is down by £4 billion—and the Treasury’s accounting  tricks will leave her coffers almost empty. With just days to go until the most important climate summit in a generation, has she clawed back some of that funding in tomorrow’s Budget, or will we see the same story playing out of a Foreign Secretary who is not taken seriously in Beijing because she is not taken seriously around her own Cabinet table?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank the hon. Lady for her warm welcome to the Dispatch Box. I look forward to working with her over the coming years—many, many years. I do not think the Chancellor would be very happy if I announced the spending review today—and I am not sure you, Mr Speaker, would be very happy either. However, I assure her that we are absolutely prioritising our humanitarian aid budget. We are prioritising women and girls as part of our development budget, and we are prioritising investing in honest, reliable infrastructure in developing countries, particularly clean, green infrastructure.

Lisa Nandy: If the Foreign Secretary is still the only person in this country who has not seen the contents of the Budget, may I refer her to the Daily Mail, which has the entire read-out for her and for the rest of us?
When the Foreign Secretary’s budget has been devastated over the past 10 years of Tory Government, can she not see the problem with no new money being announced in the Budget tomorrow? The Department she inherited was hollowed out under her predecessor and everything that she says she plans to do depends on her ability to reverse that. This House needs not more words but a serious plan. Only a few months ago, Members of this House made clear our view that what has been happening in Xinjiang constitutes genocide. She is an enthusiastic supporter of the UK’s application to join the trans-Pacific partnership, which she mentioned in relation to an earlier question. However, China’s application leaves open the very prospect that this House sought to avoid and that her predecessor blocked. We should not be entering into preferential trade arrangements with countries that commit genocide. If she cannot give the House guarantees that she has won the battle for resources, can she at least guarantee that she will veto China’s membership if the application is successful?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with the hon. Lady about the terrible atrocities that are taking place in Xinjiang, and I raised that with the Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, on the phone last week, as well as our concerns over Hong Kong, which I have also raised publicly. It is important that we trade with China, but we need to ensure that it is reliable trade, that it avoids strategic dependency and that it does not involve the violation of intellectual property rights or forced technology transfer. I urge China to respect the rules of the World Trade Organisation. Of course, the United Kingdom is not yet a member of the CPTPP, so we do not have rights over decisions, but I am clear that any country that enters the CPTPP needs to follow its high rules and standards, including high environmental and labour standards.

Thomas Tugendhat: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend to her place at the Dispatch Box. Given her past experience and her former jobs, can she tell us how she will build on the economic power of the United Kingdom to develop our  strategic influence around the world? This country grew rich not on the force of arms, but on the force of law and the different ways in which we have traded and travelled around the world. It would be fantastic to hear from her how she will use the office she now holds to defend the place of law both at home and abroad and to shape our alliances to promote our interests.

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that developing our economic ties with like-minded allies is vital to developing our influence in the world and also the influence of free enterprise, freedom and democracy. That is why we are pursuing trade deals with the likes of the CPTPP, India and the United States, which are all democratic and free enterprise-based. We now have a unique opportunity, as post-Brexit Britain, with all the tools at our disposal—development, trade, diplomacy and security—to build those links that I describe as a network of liberty across the world.

James Gray: I know the Foreign Secretary will agree that the sharply reducing ice in the Arctic is producing huge environmental challenges and serious economic and commercial opportunities, but also therefore an increase in security risks and the possibility of militarisation of one kind or another. Does she agree that the Arctic is an area worthy of intense diplomatic activity in the years to come?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is well crowbarred in.

Elizabeth Truss: I agree with my hon. Friend. Following our successful partnership with Australia and the United States on AUKUS, we are looking for similar partnerships that cover regions like the Arctic, working with close allies, such as Canada.

Alyn Smith: I also welcome the Foreign Secretary to her place. Like many other Members, I look forward to seeing many more glossy pictures of her in exciting places around the world doing her job looking fabulous. Perhaps she should sign them for Members keen to have more images of her.

James Cleverly: We will get a signed copy for you.

Alyn Smith: That would be most kind, if the Minister can arrange that. Consistency in international law is vital for credibility and for building trust, none more importantly than in Cyprus, where part of the island remains under illegal occupation. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the only basis for peace in Cyprus is a bizonal, bicommunal federation and that any speculation —we have heard some speculation—to the contrary would be deeply unhelpful and a retrograde step?

Elizabeth Truss: I am pleased to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s reading material. What I would say on the subject of Cyprus is that the UK supports a comprehensive settlement based on previous parameters set out in the UN Security Council resolution, so I do not agree with the premise of his question.

Afghanistan

Caroline Dinenage: What steps her Department is taking to help protect the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan.

Karl McCartney: What recent steps the Government has taken to provide humanitarian support to the people of Afghanistan.

Dan Jarvis: What recent assessment she has made of the security situation in Afghanistan.

James Cleverly: The security situation in Afghanistan remains fragile and volatile. Islamic State has launched deadly terror attacks, including at Kabul airport and a number of Shi’a mosques. The situation for women and girls has become even more difficult since the Taliban took power. Women are now largely absent from public life and barred from many roles in the workplace. We continue to press the Taliban to allow secondary education for girls to ensure full and equal access to education for all. Between April and 18 October, we disbursed nearly £35 million of life-saving humanitarian support to Afghanistan.

Caroline Dinenage: Before the Taliban took control, more than 3.5 million girls were in school, and many more were in university and vital roles across the Afghan economy. Taliban spokesmen say that girls can go to school, yet in many areas they are permitted only up to grade 6 or 7, and in some areas they are not permitted at all. There is a growing gap between the Taliban’s promises and the reality. To those girls and women, it must feel that the doors that opened over the last two decades are slamming shut in their faces, and those who have stood against that have been met by violence. What are our Government doing to give them hope?

James Cleverly: I thank my hon. Friend for her question about this incredibly important issue. This year, we are doubling our humanitarian and development assistance to Afghanistan to £286 million, including for women and girls. We continue to press the Taliban to ensure that women play a full and equal role in life and that girls of all ages can go to school, holding the Taliban to the commitments that they have made. On 5 October, the Prime Minister’s high representative for the Afghan transition, Sir Simon Gass, travelled to Afghanistan and held talks directly with the Taliban in which they discussed the humanitarian crisis and we pushed for improved rights for women and girls.

Karl McCartney: I thank my right hon. Friend for grouping my question. Many colleagues on the Government Benches and across the House have made representations to the Department regarding specific individuals in Afghanistan whose lives, or whose families’ lives, are at risk and would benefit from UK support similar to that given in previous years to our country’s agencies and armed forces while in Afghanistan. If former UK special forces members can vouch for certain individuals, why has the Minister’s Department not acted quickly to patriate these individuals to the safety of the UK? Would it help if they played football?

James Cleverly: The Afghan relocations and assistance policy is designed to allow Afghan nationals who served alongside Her Majesty’s armed forces and wider Government in Afghanistan, and those whom we judge to be at serious risk because of that service, to settle in  the UK. We continue to assist those who were called forward under that scheme during Operation Pitting. Sadly, we were not able to evacuate all, but we continue to seek to evacuate those who can be evacuated.
My hon. Friend referred to football—I take it that he means the Afghan junior women’s football team. As we have just discussed, the situation for women in Afghanistan is particularly acute and we are prioritising those people who are at serious risk of reprisals.

Dan Jarvis: Further to the question from the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl McCartney), the Minister will know that hundreds of people, including men who I served alongside, remain stranded in Afghanistan. Many are being hunted by the Taliban, and some have already been murdered, all because of their association with us. Will the Minister say a bit more about what the Government are doing to ensure that those who risk their lives for us are afforded safe passage out of Afghanistan?

James Cleverly: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the question. He is right that many people in the House—himself included—have served alongside incredibly brave members of the Afghan armed forces, translators and others who supported our work while we attempted to support the Afghans. The ARAP scheme is designed specifically to facilitate their evacuation from Afghanistan. He, perhaps more than most, will understand the practical difficulties in executing that on the ground.
My noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon speaks regularly with the countries in the neighbourhood to facilitate the evacuation from Afghanistan. I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the UK Government take incredibly seriously the debt of honour that we owe to those brave Afghans who are currently in danger because of their support for our work in the country.

Julian Lewis: I realise that the Government can do much more for at-risk Afghan women who have managed to cross the border and are outside the country. One thing they can do for at-risk Afghans who are still in Afghanistan is link the provision of extra aid with their not being persecuted. How explicit are we making that link? How strongly are we exploiting that leverage?

James Cleverly: My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I assure him that we hold the Taliban to their word. They will be judged on their actions, rather than just on what they have said. Clearly, they now find themselves the de facto Government of Afghanistan. We have made it clear that the support from us and the wider international community will be contingent on their behaving in a way that they have said that they intend to behave. We will always base our decisions on Afghanistan on the facts on the ground, not just on the words of Taliban spokespeople.

Stephen Kinnock: Like the shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), I welcome the Foreign Secretary and her team to their places.
It has emerged that our ambassador in Kabul sent a series of diplomatic cables to the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic  Raab), in July and August, warning him that Kabul would fall at pace and with little resistance. The former Foreign Secretary’s response to those urgent telegrams was to go on holiday. Will the new Foreign Secretary assure the House that she is putting early-warning systems in place across her Department to ensure that such a catastrophic failure of decision making is never allowed to occur again? Will she commit to coming to the House within the shortest possible timescale to make a statement outlining our political, diplomatic, economic and security strategy for Afghanistan, as opposed to making policy on the hoof, as her predecessor did?

James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman takes the opportunity to talk about things that have been widely discussed in this House, rather than about the future. That is of course up to him. The former Foreign Secretary explained his actions and there is nothing much more that I can add. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the ministerial team that she leads remain entirely focused on ensuring that where we can exert influence to bring about peace and stability in Afghanistan, we will continue to do so.

G20 Rome Summit

Chris Elmore: What the Government’s priorities are for the G20 Rome Summit.

Amanda Milling: The G20 Rome summit is an opportunity to rally the most powerful nations to tackle the ongoing covid-19 crisis and to secure a sustainable, inclusive recovery. The summit this weekend is immediately before the UK hosts COP26. We will work to build a consensus on climate objectives and to drive forward priorities on health, girls’ education and the economic recovery to build back better.

Chris Elmore: The Minister mentioned in her answer tackling the covid-19 pandemic. Last week, WHO’s ambassador for global health financing, Gordon Brown, shared that 240 million doses of covid-19 vaccine are lying unused. Will the Minister set out what will be prioritised at the G20 to ensure that the poorest nations around the world can gain access to those unused vaccines? As has been said many times, we are not all vaccinated until everyone is vaccinated.

Amanda Milling: This is a global pandemic and we need to get the global population vaccinated. That is why we led the way at the G7 summit earlier in the year, where the Prime Minister committed to sharing 100 million doses by June 2022, 80% of which will go to COVAX. We need to ensure that the global population gets vaccinated.

Jake Berry: One of the best ways to ensure a global recovery from the covid pandemic is to enable northern businesses to trade freely across the world. One of the biggest challenges is the non-tariff barriers that they face in advance of any trade deal. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister confirm to the House what support is available through our embassy network and how do businesses access it?

Amanda Milling: My right hon. Friend is a real campaigner for the north of England. Having lived there for 15 years, I know that it is very important. I have just  come back from a visit to the Philippines, Singapore and Japan, and one of the things I saw was posts doing everything they can to promote British business on the ground to ensure trade links in exports and in foreign direct investment.

Stephen Doughty: I welcome the Minister to her place. She mentioned her visit to the Pacific, but the G20 also includes one African representative, and it usually invites the African Union and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. I hope that the specific economic health climate and the humanitarian crises affecting some countries in Africa will be discussed, not least because we heard yesterday about the terrible events in Sudan. I also hope that the UK will raise the worsening situation in Ethiopia, which is a past G20 invitee, given the resumption of attacks on Mekelle, human rights atrocities, and the humanitarian crisis affecting people in Tigray and beyond. What will the Government be doing specifically on that issue at the G20, other than cutting our assistance to Africa?

Amanda Milling: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there was an urgent question yesterday about the situation in Sudan. The situation in northern Ethiopia is dire, and the UK condemns the ongoing violence and the spread of the conflict into Afar and Amhara, as well as the airstrikes impacting civilians and the ongoing human rights abuses and violations. We call on both sides urgently to implement a ceasefire and for the Eritrean forces to depart, and to seek a solution.

Pakistan: Maira Shahbaz

Edward Leigh: What discussions her Department has had with officials in the Government of Pakistan on the case of Maira Shahbaz.

James Cleverly: We strongly condemn forced marriage and the forced conversion of women and girls, including in Pakistan. We regularly raise our concerns, including individual cases, at a senior level with the Pakistani authorities. We fund projects in Pakistan to address child and forced marriages, gender-based violence, and discrimination and intolerance, especially against minorities.

Edward Leigh: At the age of 14, Maira Shahbaz was abducted, forced into a marriage against her will, and raped. She managed to escape, and she is living in fear for her life in one room with her entire family. We have now been campaigning for over a year, 12,000 people have signed a petition, and we saw the Home Secretary. Can the Foreign Office not do more? Is it for fear of alienating the Pakistan Government, to whom we give £300 million a year? Can we have action this day to move the court case on, get her out, and get her to safety in the United Kingdom?

James Cleverly: My right hon. Friend will understand that it is difficult and sometimes counterproductive to discuss individual cases in detail, as to do so could put individuals and their families at risk. The House, and indeed hon. Members, will have heard his points, and I assure him that requests for asylum will be considered on their merits.

Sarah Champion: Child marriage is an abhorrent practice wherever it is found, and I urge the House to support the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) in her Bill to ban it in this country. I welcome the Foreign Secretary to her place, and particularly the fact that she has kept the women and girls brief. Will she explain why, in her first week in the job, she signed off £183 million in cuts to education for women and girls, when such funding is one of the key drivers to prevent child marriage?

James Cleverly: I assure the Chair of the International Development Committee, and the whole House, that my right hon. Friend, the Department, and the wider Government take the rights of women around the world incredibly seriously. Education for girls remains a priority for the Prime Minister, and we will continue to advocate for that internationally, and fight for that as a priority within Government.

Development: Promoting the Rule of Law

Andrew Selous: What steps she is taking to help promote the rule of law through her Department’s development work.

Vicky Ford: The UK is committed to being a force for good in the world, which includes upholding the rule of law. We promote the rule of law through our policy and programme engagement, which includes the UK’s Rule of Law Expertise Programme. That engages with stakeholders across the legal, judicial and development sectors, and is currently working in Nepal, Nigeria, Uganda, Malawi, Kenya, Rwanda and Tanzania.

Andrew Selous: For many poor people around the world, lack of access to justice is their biggest issue. If someone is too frightened to go to school because they think they will be raped on the way, or too scared to develop their smallholding because they think someone will steal the land, it will be much more difficult to escape poverty. What proportion of our development spending goes on ensuring easy access to a robust criminal justice system for the global poor?

Vicky Ford: My hon. Friend is a true campaigner for freedom, human rights and, as we have heard, access to justice. Many of the UK’s programmes contribute directly or indirectly towards access to justice, and we therefore do not quantify the exact proportion of our development spending in that area. The UK remains a world leader in international development, and we use our aid budget to strengthen democratic institutions, defend human rights, champion free media, and promote effective governance.

Fabian Hamilton: I am sure the Minister agrees that reports that the Turkish Government are to expel many of our allies’ ambassadors from the country, after they rightly raised concerns about the ongoing slide in civil liberties and freedom of expression, are extremely worrying. We simply must not hang our allies out to dry. Given that Turkey is a key NATO ally, will the Minister join us in finally making clear, as she has not publicly in the past, that the UK  will not accept any further attempts to undermine civil liberties, and that we stand with the 10 countries whose representation in Turkey has been affected by such a provocative act?

Vicky Ford: We are very pleased that Turkey and the 10 countries concerned have found a way to resolve this diplomatic crisis. We will continue to work closely with Turkey, which is a very important NATO ally, and we will continue to work with other key partners to strengthen the productive ties with Turkey from which we all benefit.

Indo-Pacific Region: UK Relations

Rob Butler: What steps she is taking to strengthen UK relations in the Indo-Pacific region.

Elizabeth Truss: We are strengthening our relationships to promote a free and secure Indo-Pacific. That includes working with like-minded allies to build strong economic partnerships, to undertake joint military exercises as part of the carrier strike group, which I was fortunate to visit this week, and to secure our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

Rob Butler: In recent weeks, there has been an alarming increase in the number of Chinese military jets staging incursions into Taiwan’s air defence identification zone. Given China’s repeated statements that reunification with Taiwan must happen, which of course the Taiwanese do not want, and China’s recent record in Hong Kong, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what diplomatic efforts are being made to strengthen UK relations in order to ensure the stability of that region?

Elizabeth Truss: The large number of Chinese military flights that took place near Taiwan at the beginning of October are not conducive to peace and stability in the region. We need peaceful resolution through constructive dialogue, and the work that the United Kingdom is doing through the carrier strike group and our security partnerships is contributing to peace across the region.

Harry Dunn

Andrea Leadsom: If she will hold discussions with her US counterpart on the death of Harry Dunn.

Elizabeth Truss: We have the deepest sympathy for Harry’s family. I have spoken to them about the case. I raised the case with Secretary Blinken, and we also raised it with President Biden when we were over in the United States. I am very clear that justice needs to be delivered for Harry and his family.

Andrea Leadsom: I pay tribute to Harry’s mum, Charlotte, and Harry’s dad, Tim, for their incredible courage in determining that they will achieve justice for Harry one way or another. They have already been striving for that for more than two years. Does my right  hon. Friend agree that we have to do everything possible with our great allies around the world to ensure mutual respect, and that abiding by the rule of law and achieving justice in a harrowing situation such as this is vital to those relationships?

Elizabeth Truss: I praise my right hon. Friend for the huge support that she has given to the family of Harry Dunn. I had the opportunity to speak with them; of course, the situation they find themselves in is absolutely terrible. I am determined that we should deliver justice for Harry and his family, and I am pushing the United States. Of course it is a key ally of the United Kingdom, but we must see justice delivered.

Safe Passage from Afghanistan

Neale Hanvey: What diplomatic steps she is taking to support the safe passage of (a) UK citizens and (b) Afghan nationals from Afghanistan.

Stephen Farry: What steps her Department is taking to assist vulnerable Afghans leave Afghanistan to places of safety.

James Cleverly: The Government continue to do all they can to ensure safe passage of eligible individuals who wish to leave Afghanistan. The UK has had constructive engagement with near neighbours, led by my noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. British nationals continue to be facilitated and supported in their exit from Afghanistan, including through Qatar Airways flights. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Afghan evacuees and the Qatari authorities on this very issue on her recent trip.

Neale Hanvey: I thank the Minister for that answer and the Secretary of State for her recent update on this issue. It is important to acknowledge the considerable efforts that are being made, but concerns persist for those who remain and are seeking refuge or safe passage from Afghanistan. Members will understand that I cannot name my constituents for fear of putting their relatives in a deeply perilous state, but what more can the Government do to assist hon. Members to alleviate the anguish and distress of constituents with loved ones in Afghanistan? Will the Government commit to working with Members to secure safe passage from Afghanistan, removing their constituents from immediate risk?

James Cleverly: The situation in Afghanistan is painful for us all. Three routes have been set up: for British nationals, through the Foreign Office; for Afghan nationals, through the Home Office; and for those who have supported us directly, through the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme. We continue to engage directly with the Taliban. The Prime Minister’s High Representative for Afghanistan, Simon Gass, and the Chargé d’Affaires of the UK mission to Afghanistan based in Doha, Dr Martin Longden, travelled to Afghanistan on 5 October to have direct talks with the Taliban, and to hold them to the commitments they have made about respecting and protecting people within Afghanistan.

Stephen Farry: Outside the ARAP scheme and within Operation Pitting, a number of other people were called forward for evacuation. Can the Minister give the House full transparency in terms of how many people were actually called forward, how many people were evacuated, and how many of that cohort still remain in Afghanistan?

James Cleverly: Since 28 August, over 500 more individuals eligible to come to the UK have been able to leave Afghanistan, as well as more than 400 British nationals and their dependants. We have assisted over 135 British nationals and their dependants to leave Afghanistan on Qatar-chartered flights. The total number of people who may be eligible is almost impossible for us to assess with clarity.

Bahrain: Political and Human Rights

Margaret Ferrier: What recent assessment she has made of the political and human rights situation in Bahrain.

James Cleverly: We continue to monitor the political and human rights developments in Bahrain. Bahrain is a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office human rights priority country. We publish our assessment of the situation, including on areas of concern and areas of improvement in Bahrain, in the annual FCDO human rights report, most recently published on 8 July 2021. The details the hon. Lady requires are available in that document.

Margaret Ferrier: Over a decade after pro-democracy protests were crushed and oversight mechanisms, which the UK helped to fund, were adopted, cosmetic reforms have failed to remedy Bahrain’s deep-rooted problems. Will the Government show their commitment to Bahrain and publicly call for meaningful and inclusive political dialogue there, and for the unconditional release of all political prisoners, including Dr al-Singace, Hassan Mushaima, Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, and Sheikh Ali Salman?

James Cleverly: The United Kingdom enjoys a constructive relationship with Bahrain, which means that where there are areas of concern we are able to bring them up directly. I myself have done so in bilateral meetings I have had with Bahraini officials, both here in the UK and on my trips to Bahrain. We continue to monitor the cases the hon. Lady raises, and others as necessary.

Iran: Middle East Terror Groups

Greg Smith: What assessment she has made of the implications for regional security of Iran’s potential support for terror groups in the Middle East.

James Cleverly: The UK has long condemned Iran’s regional destabilising activities. We regularly raise our concerns at the United Nations, most recently doing so on 9 August. We support the security of our allies in the middle east, including defence partnerships and capability building. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary  discussed continued security collaboration with her Saudi counterparts on 20 October and her Israeli counterparts on 19 October.

Greg Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Iran remains the world’s leading sponsor of terror groups, including those committed to the destruction of Israel, and continues to enjoy impunity for its actions. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that having a nuclear weapon would give Iran the ultimate protection to spread its malign influence in the region? Will he confirm that the UK will keep all options on the table to stop Iran becoming a nuclear power?

James Cleverly: I can assure my hon. Friend that our priority remains to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. Sadly, Iran’s nuclear programme has never been more advanced, and it is more worrying today than perhaps it has ever been. We regularly call strongly on Iran to halt all activities in violation of the joint comprehensive plan of action without delay and take the opportunity in front of it at the Vienna talks to restore the JCPOA. The current offer cannot remain on the table indefinitely.

AUKUS: Shared Security Priorities

Ruth Edwards: What steps she is taking to establish partnerships founded on shared security priorities following the trilateral security pact between Australia, the UK and the United States.

Paul Holmes: What steps she is taking to establish partnerships founded on shared security priorities following the trilateral security pact between Australia, the UK and the United States.

Henry Smith: What steps she is taking to establish partnerships founded on shared security priorities following the trilateral security pact between Australia, the UK and the United States.

Elizabeth Truss: To protect freedom and democracy around the world, it is vital that we deepen our security relationships with friends and allies. AUKUS represents a long-term commitment to deeper co-operation on future defence capabilities with Australia and the United States, and we want to build on it, including with other partners.

Ruth Edwards: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Could she set out how the Government intend to expand the scope of partnerships such as AUKUS to cover civilian and dual-use technologies such as semi- conductor chips and 5G?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is right; we must ensure that technology standards and advances are shaped by the free world, whether that is the free flow of data, cyber, artificial intelligence, 5G or quantum computing. In India this week I agreed a partnership on future technology, especially on 5G. We are also working with the US and other partners to shape the future of technology.

Paul Holmes: I thank my right hon. Friend for her earlier answer. She recently spoke of building
“a network of liberty across the globe.”
Beyond Australia and the United States, can she advise the House of any other nations with which she would like to deepen our security relationship, to improve our position and security across the globe?

Elizabeth Truss: Alongside AUKUS and of course NATO we are building partnerships with other allies. I recently hosted the Baltic three to talk about increased co-operation in the area, we have agreed enhanced co-operation with Greece and we are in talks with Japan about future security co-operation.

Henry Smith: My right hon. Friend correctly spoke about the network of liberty referred to earlier. What discussions has she had with the world’s largest democracy, India, on security co-operation?

Elizabeth Truss: India is a very strong ally of the United Kingdom and we want to work more closely together across a range of security and defence issues. While I was in Mumbai, the UK carrier strike group was stationed off the coast; we have just conducted the UK’s largest ever joint exercise with Indian armed forces, and we are now deepening that co-operation.

Topical Questions

Gary Sambrook: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Elizabeth Truss: As Foreign Secretary, I will work to deepen our economic and security partnerships, to challenge malign actors from a position of strength. In our development budget, I will prioritise investing in honest, reliable infrastructure in developing countries, providing life-saving humanitarian aid and supporting women and girls across the world. We are pursuing a positive, proactive foreign policy that delivers for people across our great country.

Gary Sambrook: I am sure my right hon. Friend shares my grave concern at Iran’s escalation of uranium enrichment to 60% and production of uranium metal, which has no credible civilian purpose. Will the Government therefore seek a resolution of censure at the next International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors session, so we can ensure that we hold Iran to account?

Elizabeth Truss: Iran has no credible civilian justification for its nuclear escalation. As I made clear to my Iranian counterpart, Iran urgently needs to return to the negotiating table and, if it does not engage meaningfully in negotiations, we will reconsider our approach. All options are on the table.

Preet Kaur Gill: I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. Yesterday, it emerged that the Prime Minister’s pleading at the G7 and the United Nations to deliver £100 billion of climate finance has failed. With that, we had another example of the waning global influence of this Government in retreat. I had hoped that the new Foreign and Development  Secretary would have put a stop to that, but her first act was to sign off on savage aid cuts to climate programmes and climate-vulnerable countries, disproportionately impacting women and girls, weeks before the most important climate summit of our lifetime. Does the Secretary of State agree that cuts to programmes such as the green economic growth initiative to preserve Papua’s 90% forest cover, and cuts to the aid budget, have actively undermined the UK’s ability to deliver not only at the conference of the parties, but on the world stage, exposing global Britain as little more than a slogan?

Elizabeth Truss: I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s analysis at all. We are making very positive progress on COP26; only this morning, we heard Australia’s announcement about its commitment to net zero. I am looking forward to attending COP in Glasgow next week and presenting a very ambitious finance package. Only a few weeks ago, when we were in the United States, we saw it commit to over £11 billion of climate finance. There are trillions available in the private sector that we will be unlocking to deal with the climate crisis.[Official Report, 27 October 2021, Vol. 702, c. 2MC.]

David Mundell: The Nutrition for Growth Tokyo summit will now take place in December, having been postponed by a year. In the meantime, rates of malnutrition have spiralled as a result of the covid-19 pandemic. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that she will use the summit to reaffirm UK global leadership on nutrition and commit to reaching 50 million people with nutrition services by 2025?

Wendy Morton: I know that my right hon. Friend takes a keen interest in the topic of nutrition. The prevention and treatment of malnutrition remain important for the UK as part of our work on global health humanitarian response and in support of our goals on girls’ education. I assure him that the Government are actively considering our approach to the Nutrition for Growth summit, including any commitments on nutrition, and we will update the House following the conclusion of the spending review.

Chi Onwurah: As we encourage the take-up of the booster jab here, we know that we are not safe until everyone is protected. The same applies globally, yet the vast majority of Africans are yet to receive a single jab. Only 2% of Nigerians have been jabbed, for example, despite Nigeria having the potential to manufacture its own vaccines. Will the Secretary of State work to identify and equip the many manufacturing and fill-and-finish facilities required in Africa, as Labour is calling for, so that Africa can afford to vaccinate Africans?

Vicky Ford: The UK committed more than £500 million to the COVAX facility and helped it to deliver more than 81 million doses to 44 African countries. In addition, we are providing UK emergency medical teams to 10 African countries. We have put a public health rapid support team into Nigeria, Gambia, Tunisia and other countries in Africa. At the World Bank annual meetings the week  before last, I raised the importance of ensuring longer-term vaccine financing for Africa and that all programmes work together. We are strengthening the support that we give in African countries, to help them to have the health systems they need to continue providing essential health and getting those vaccines out.

Sara Britcliffe: Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State welcome the new agreement signed recently with Greece? Can she give examples of how the UK and Greece are working in greater

Wendy Morton: I was delighted that yesterday the Foreign Secretary met the Greek Foreign Minister, Minister Dendias, and signed a new strategic bilateral framework that will build on the co-operation between our countries. It will open up new opportunities for trade and investment in both countries, allowing us to build on the £4.5 billion-worth of annual trade that we already have. It will also enable better co-operation among our businesses, investors and industry, and will promote even stronger security and defence co-operation, both as NATO allies and in enhancing Europe’s resilience in the face of security threats.

Matt Western: I welcome the Secretary of State to her position. Will she update the House on her Government’s recent discussions with international allies on restarting a meaningful peace process between Palestine and the Israeli Government? Will she describe the personal importance that she attaches to achieving a two-state solution?

James Cleverly: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary engages regularly with the leadership of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. It remains a foundation stone of UK foreign policy in the region to pursue, support and, where possible, facilitate a two-state solution based on 1967 lines with agreed land swaps and Jerusalem as a shared capital of both states.

Philip Hollobone: As well as funding anti-Israel terror groups in Lebanon, Gaza and Syria, Iran is systematically and aggressively advancing its nuclear weapons programme, and is now enriching uranium to 60% for the first time ever. While the west dithers, Iran enriches more uranium. Do we actually have a serious and credible plan to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is right: we absolutely must stop Iran securing those nuclear capabilities, and we are working closely with our allies across the world. I have chaired a meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council to discuss this very issue.

Dan Jarvis: It was reported recently that eight children from the same family in Kabul had died of starvation. With Afghanistan on the verge of its worst-ever food crisis, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to say what urgent action the Government are taking to support humanitarian access to Afghanistan?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the terrible situation in Afghanistan. I travelled to the region this week—I went to Qatar, where I met evacuees from Afghanistan—and we are working very closely with our international allies. We have increased our aid for Afghanistan to £286 million, and we are working to hold the Taliban to account to ensure that they live up to the promises they have made.

Robbie Moore: I have been informed of unfortunate cases of constituents who are unable to return home from Pakistan owing to disparities in international travel laws, including the fact that certain Pakistan-administered vaccines are not recognised by the UK Government. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Ministry of Defence will open discussions with Pakistani counterparts to find a solution, and will work with colleagues in the Department for Transport to ensure that my constituents who want to return home from Pakistan are able to do so safely?

James Cleverly: Pakistan is a significant, important and close partner to the UK. Travellers from Pakistan can come to the UK freely provided that they adhere to the relevant covid-19 restrictions, the details of which are on the gov.uk website. We will continue to work with our Pakistani colleagues to reopen international travel safely.

Alistair Carmichael: What evidence have the Government of Israel given the Foreign Secretary or her Department to justify the designation of six Palestinian human rights organisations as terrorist organisations? Does she agree with me—and, indeed, with the assessment of B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organisation—that this is not worthy of a democracy, and is more what we expect from repressive regimes?

James Cleverly: The UK’s relationship with Israel is strong and important, and the strength of that relationship allows us to raise sensitive issues such as this. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will be speaking to our friends and colleagues in the Israeli Government about the reasons why they felt that they needed to designate those organisations.

Chris Grayling: The Foreign Secretary referred in her opening remarks to the work that her Department was doing, but did not mention the support that she is providing for environmental projects, particularly the valuable projects in the Congo basin. May I ask her to ensure that the work she does on land, in forests, is matched by support for marine projects, where the loss of habitats is equally serious and the benefits for tackling climate change can be enormous?

Vicky Ford: I assure my right hon. Friend that this Government are determined to protect the ocean. We are leading international efforts to protect 30% of the world’s ocean by 2030, and are substantially increasing our investment to support that. Our £500 million blue plant fund will protect mangroves and coral reefs, tackle ocean plastic pollution, and reduce coastal poverty.

Kate Osamor: I welcome the Secretary of State to her new role. As the United Nations penholder on Myanmar, and given the  Burmese military build-up and increased attacks in north-western Myanmar, are the UK Government planning to convene the UN Security Council immediately to discuss how to respond to these deeply disturbing events?

Amanda Milling: The UK is deeply concerned about what is happening in the north-western regions of Myanmar, particularly the significant troop movements by the Myanmar armed forces, and about reports of multiple civilian casualties and displacements. On 15 October, the UK released a statement urging the military to end their campaign of violence. We are monitoring developments closely, and are in discussion with our international partners in the UN Security Council.

Jeremy Hunt: I warmly welcome my successor’s successor to her place, although saying that makes me feel rather old. She will know that Richard Ratcliffe, Nazanin’s husband, has restarted his hunger strike this week. She will also know that Nazanin is not going to come home until we pay the debt that we owe Iran for the Challenger tanks, which the Defence Secretary has accepted that we owe Iran. When are we going to repay that debt, and what will the Minister do to ensure that hostage taking never pays?

Elizabeth Truss: I have huge sympathy for Nazanin and Richard Ratcliffe. I have spoken to both of them about the terrible situation that Nazanin faces. It is imperative that she is not put back into jail in Iran, and I am working as hard as I can, both directly with the Iranian authorities—I have had a meeting with Iranian Ministers—and with our international allies to bring Nazanin and the other UK detainees home.

John Cryer: What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Government of Nigeria about the attacks by Boko Haram and other groups on just about every minority in Nigeria, particularly Christians?

Vicky Ford: We absolutely condemn violence across Nigeria. These attacks have devastating effects on all communities. Religious identity is a factor in some   incidents of intercommunal violence, but the root causes are very complex. When I met African heads of mission in London on 21 September, I emphasised that democracy, human rights and the rule of law are all core UK values and that those values also include the freedom of religion or belief.

Fiona Bruce: We know that 2,763 Yazidi women, girls and children are still missing, seven years after they were abducted by Daesh in Iraq. Many were taken as sexual slaves and child soldiers. Will the Minister meet me and members of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief to review what action the UK can take to support the call to assist those people by members of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance this week?

Vicky Ford: I thank my hon. Friend for her important question and for all the work she does in this area. This Government and I are committed to freedom of religion or belief and to the protection of women and girls, and I would be happy to discuss with her this issue and the wider issues of concern in this area.

Rupa Huq: Can the Foreign Secretary and former Lord Chancellor impress upon her counterparts in Poland the importance of a judiciary that is free from political interference, as that seems to be under threat there? Can she also reiterate that, post Brexit, Her Majesty’s sovereign Government control their own border policy, which totally entitles them to exclude hate speakers such as the polemicist Rafał Ziemkiewicz, as happened the other day at Heathrow airport?

Wendy Morton: In relation to Poland, we are aware of the recent European Court of Human Rights ruling, which found that recent Polish constitutional court rulings involving controversially appointed judges did not constitute a tribunal established by law. It is for each country to decide on its constitutional arrangements, but here in the UK we expect alignment with international law.

Budget: Pre-announcement of Provisions

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to the urgent question, I have a short statement to make. I have repeatedly stated in the clearest possible terms that important announcements should be made by the Government first in this House rather than outside it. I did so again yesterday in relation to the briefings issued to the media about the Budget. I was therefore disappointed to see more stories in the media today with apparently very well-briefed information about what will be in tomorrow’s Budget. The Government do not just have to take my word for this; their own ministerial code says:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”—
in this House.
As I said yesterday, I do not have to give a reason for my decisions about urgent question applications, but in this case I want the House, and especially the Government, to be clear that if the Government continue to treat this House in this discourteous manner, I will do everything in my power to ensure that Ministers are called here at the earliest opportunity to explain themselves. I personally have nothing against the Minister and I feel sorry for the person who has to answer at the Dispatch Box but, once again, this House will not be taken for granted. It is not right for everybody else to be briefed. It is not more important to go on the news in the morning; it is more important to come here. Let us get the message across that these elected Members represent this United Kingdom. It is not done through Sky TV.

Bridget Phillipson: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a statement on the details of all the provisions in the upcoming Budget that have been made public in advance of the Chancellor’s statement.

Simon Clarke: Mr Speaker, I have the deepest respect for you, this House and all its processes. It is a pleasure to be with you this afternoon. The ability of Parliament to scrutinise the Government, including the Budget, is clearly crucial, which is why we have five days of parliamentary debate ahead of us this week and next, and it is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will, in addition, be appearing before two Select Committees of this House next week.
Tomorrow my right hon. Friend will announce a Budget that delivers a stronger economy for the British people, invests in public services and levelling up, and delivers on growth and jobs with a pay rise for 7 million people— 5 million in the public sector and 2 million through an increase in the national living wage.
I will briefly summarise the headline announcements we have already made on the Budget, with the caveat that the bulk of the detail of the Budget will be delivered by the Chancellor himself at this Dispatch Box tomorrow. Importantly, that includes all market-sensitive information. Part of the Government’s objective in trailing specific aspects of the Budget in advance is to help communicate to the public what we are doing with their hard-earned money, because we believe there is merit in clear and accurate information.
I now turn briefly to just a few of the measures we have announced: an increase in the national living wage from £8.91 to £9.50 an hour, meaning an extra £1,000 a year for a full-time worker; £3 billion-worth of investment to build a high-wage, high-skill economy, with a doubling of investment in 16 to 19-year-olds and a quadrupling of the number of skills boot camps; and a multibillion-pound overhaul of local transport to help level up communities across England, with transport settlements for city regions increased to £5.7 billion and allocated directly to cities. As part of the spending review, there is a £5.9 billion deal for the NHS to tackle the backlog of non-emergency procedures and to modernise digital technology, with at least 100 community diagnostic centres to help clear most test backlogs by the end of this Parliament.
These are just a few of the measures that the Chancellor will outline to the House tomorrow as the Government continue their work to deliver a stronger economy for the British people.

Bridget Phillipson: Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.
We face an urgent cost of living crisis. Prices are up in our shops, at our petrol pumps and on our heating bills. Families and businesses are waiting and hoping for the Chancellor to take the action that they and our country desperately need. He has not even delivered his Budget yet and it is already falling apart. In recent days, we have read thousands of words about what he plans to do, but the silence is deafening on the soaring bills and rising prices facing families and businesses.
I have five questions for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury today, and I ask him to answer them clearly and simply, not through a press release but to this House. First, will he properly justify withholding from Parliament decisions that he and his colleagues have detailed in the press?
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman just stood at the Dispatch Box and said that he believes in clear and accurate information. On that basis, will he confirm he understands that, for a full-time worker on the minimum wage in receipt of universal credit, a rise to £9.50 an hour will place far less than an extra £1,000 in their pocket?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the public sector pay rises that Ministers told newspapers about yesterday will be real-terms pay rises, as the Under- Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), was unable to do so on the telly this morning?
Fourthly, will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury follow Labour’s lead and confirm today, now he is with us, that he will be cutting VAT on domestic heating bills to 0% for six months? Finally, will he back Britain’s high-street firms and freeze business rates now and replace them with a better system fast?
The right hon. Gentleman can tell the newspapers; it is time for him to tell this House.

Simon Clarke: It is important that we consider all the measures that have been trailed in the round. It is clear that the wider announcements that have been made are entirely accurate. The national living wage is to rise by £1,000 a year, which will take the benefit for a full-time worker on the national living wage to £5,000 since 2016. That is a substantial increase. It beggars belief that the  Labour party can stand there and say that a 6.6% increase in the national living wage is somehow not enough. It needs to be considered in conjunction with all the other announcements that have been made, including the £500 million household support fund, the energy price cap and all the action that we have taken to freeze fuel duty and to keep bills low. We are acutely conscious of the pressures that face households and we take action to modify them.
On public sector pay, which the hon. Lady asked about, I am delighted that we will be returning to the normal processes that adjust public sector pay in the light of all the pressures that exist. It will be for the relevant pay review bodies to discuss that, in conjunction with the Government, in the normal way. I am not going to pre- empt that work, but we will work closely with them to make sure that what is announced is right. The Chancellor will have further details on that in his speech.
On the cost of energy, the energy price cap is protecting households, with up to £100 a year off their bills. That is the right thing to do. We all recognise that that is a priority for all our constituents.
On business rates, we will get the upshot of the fundamental review of how we can get the future of business rates right. The Labour party has committed to abolishing business rates, without any clear idea of how it would fund that. Indeed, the disconnect between what the Labour party has committed to and what it has actually identified the funding for is somewhere in the region of £400 billion of commitments with £5 billion of savings to pay for them. That is not a responsible way to run the economy.
What you will be hearing from the Government Benches tomorrow, Mr Speaker, is a clear plan to make sure that we can not only balance the books but take our economy forward in a way that works for the benefit of all our communities. That is obviously the priority for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and for me.

John Redwood: This is not the first Government who have wanted more than one day’s news out of a Budget, but the right way to do it is for all Ministers to observe complete Budget secrecy, for the Chancellor to announce the tax changes and the block totals on spending and then, in the days that follow, for Cabinet Ministers to come to the House to announce the detailed spending plans and subject them to our scrutiny. If that was right for all previous Governments, why is it not right for this one?

Simon Clarke: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and I completely share his assessment of the importance of this House, of which both the Chancellor and I are acutely aware. In 2013, the then Chancellor, George Osborne, asked the permanent secretary for Her Majesty’s Treasury to conduct a review of the practice of the release of Budget information under embargo on Budget day, and he set out a series of recommendations. His central conclusion was that the Treasury should introduce
“a ban on the pre-release of the core of the Budget…that is: the economic and fiscal projections, the fiscal judgement and individual tax rates, reliefs and allowances.”
We have observed that stricture in full and I am obviously totally committed to continuing to do that.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is a matter of judgment.

Alison Thewliss: I do not know whether to congratulate the Minister on his promotion, as he has come here to give us the Budget a day early. What he has not given this House is an apology. He should not be announcing things on Twitter; we should be waiting for the Budget to see the full detail. This has been going on since September—it is not new. There have been daily announcements drip-feeding the entire Budget ahead of time. Of course, the Government hold all the cards, along with the Office for Budget Responsibility, because we cannot tell what the detail actually means. For Scotland, we cannot tell what the Barnett consequentials —if, indeed, there are any—will be.
We know what is going to be in the Budget speech and we know what is not going to be in it, because the Government have not done things such as carbon capture and storage in Scotland. Of course, none of it is what the Government and the Chancellor should be doing in the Budget speech. They should be reinstating the £20 universal credit cut; scrapping the national insurance tax on jobs; tackling the spiralling cost-of-living crisis; and supporting hospitality and tourism with a VAT cut to see them through the winter months and into next year.
If the Government cannot be responsible with the powers that they hold and if they cannot be trusted to give us the actual truth on Budget day tomorrow, all the financial powers—I call for this again—should be given to the Scottish Parliament so that we can make the decisions that are right for the people of Scotland.

Simon Clarke: I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. I think that we are much stronger as one United Kingdom. The OECD has reaffirmed that we are expected to have the fastest growth in the G7 both this year and next and that is something that we are achieving as one country together. She asked about the Barnett consequentials. Those will be set out very clearly in the Budget tomorrow. (Interruption.) I can assure her that, of course, we consider this very closely and we will be in a position to give good news for Scotland as part of a strong United Kingdom tomorrow. I had productive conversations about the future of the fiscal framework with the Scottish Finance Minister, Kate Forbes, just last week. I can commit that I will be speaking to her in accordance with the usual Budget conventions tomorrow morning, ahead of the statement.

Jake Berry: I am sure that my right hon. Friend accepts that the rabbit may be out of the hat. So if the Chancellor is still looking for a fluffy bunny to present on Budget day, may I advise that we make a huge announcement about the Government’s levelling-up fund? That would be welcomed by communities across the north of England and demonstrate our Government’s commitment to make sure that we level up the peoples of the north.

Simon Clarke: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right that levelling up is a core theme of this Government. It is something of which I am very proud, as a north-eastern MP, to have the chance to help deliver, and it is going to be one of the golden threads of the Budget and spending review  tomorrow. I wish that I could start plucking rabbits out of the hat for him now, but he will have to wait just a few more hours to get some, hopefully, very welcome news.

Lindsay Hoyle: Sky TV tomorrow.

Angela Eagle: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. It has taken me nearly 30 years, but I now find that I agree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) in his question. This is serious. As an Opposition, we cannot look in detail at the slew—the blizzard—of Budget announcements that have been going on week after week, because we do not have the OBR report and we do not have the detail. This is treating parliamentary democracy with utter contempt and the Minister should be completely ashamed of himself. He should have come to this House and apologised. His boss should have come to this House and apologised.

Simon Clarke: I thank the hon. Lady for her points. Clearly, as a former Treasury Minister herself, she would never have engaged in any activity of this kind. The point is that there is absolutely no question of our commitment to observing all the proprieties, reflecting the Macpherson review, which was an internal review conducted by Sir Nicholas, the then permanent secretary, to work out what was sensible in advance of the Budget. We have not commented on any of the substantive tax measures and there will be a raft of full information in both the Budget documents and the documents provided by the OBR, which obviously provides a level of detail that the last Labour Government never provided in terms of their equivalent events.

Desmond Swayne: There are two sides to this coin. The first is the Government broadcasting without first letting us know. The other is the information that they are trying to keep from us. Why was the leaked information on the substantial costs of winter plan B marked “Not for publication”? What are the Government trying to hide? Why are they frightened of our scrutiny?

Simon Clarke: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I will not comment on leaks—[Laughter.] The absolute bottom line is that we are, of course, committed to plan A, and there is no question but that he will find that plan A remains the resolute conviction of both this Government and, I believe, this House in terms of how we can most sensibly take the country through the winter ahead. We are not moving to plan B. We are committed to plan A. He should be reassured that we want to keep our economy and society open as we move through the challenges of the weeks and months ahead.

Clive Efford: I have been here for many years and have seen many Budgets. I have seen the Order Papers being waved on the day, and then the Budgets fall apart over the following hours and the following days, but this is the first Budget that I have seen fall apart before Budget day. We have heard the announcement about public sector pay, but we have not heard whether, if it is increased, that increase will be funded, or whether it will have to come from within existing budgets. When the Government were forced to increase the pay rise for nurses from 1% to 3%, they did  not fund it; they forced it to be funded from within NHS resources. Since we are into leaks, will the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to fund a public sector pay increase?

Simon Clarke: Ensuring that we can move out of the shadow of the public sector pay freeze is obviously something that we are all glad to be able to do. The Chancellor will set out the full details of how that will operate in his statement tomorrow.

Julian Lewis: The Minister is one of the nice guys in Parliament and richly deserved his promotion. What he did not deserve was to be put in this position by an untenable policy. I have to ask him the question: why is it important, right or necessary to share Budget information with the media before it is shared with this House, where it can be subjected to proper scrutiny, and will he give an undertaking on behalf of the Treasury team to stop doing it?

Simon Clarke: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words. As a Treasury team—indeed, as a Government—we are all committed to ensuring that this House is fully respected. That remains at the core of our work. As a Member of this House, I take that very seriously, and so does the Chancellor. Clearly, when we set out certain announcements, we try to provide some specific information about what the Government are seeking to achieve with those measures. We have respected absolutely and in full the stricture that we should not be talking about tax measures or adjustments, and that is something that I can commit we will absolutely continue to do.

Wendy Chamberlain: Education has been very much missing from the pre-announcements. Given the amount of learning that our children have lost due to covid, I wonder whether the Minister would give us another leak or pre-announcement by letting us know whether the full £15 billion advocated by the Government’s education recovery adviser before he resigned will be allocated to education, and what support he will be giving to the devolved nations on the same topic.

Simon Clarke: It is obviously tremendously important that we help our schools to catch up, given the impact of the months of lost learning owing to the pandemic. I have seen that in my constituency, as the hon. Member will have in hers. The Government have committed £3 billion to date to help with education catch-up. The Chancellor will be speaking more about this matter in his statement tomorrow.

Philip Hollobone: Funded by taxpayers through Her Majesty’s Treasury, the NHS hospital building programme is a flagship policy and a key part of the Treasury’s medium-term forecasts. Kettering General Hospital is one of those hospitals. When NHS England approves the strategic outline case for the hospital and submits those proposals to the Chief Secretary for sign-off, will he look favourably upon it, because it is a key priority for constituents in Kettering?

Simon Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak up for the hospital in his constituency. The Government have committed to 40 new hospitals and 70 hospital upgrades. That is a core part of our programme  to ensure that the NHS is fit for the future. I will, of course, be delighted to look at the case for Kettering General Hospital, as will ministerial colleagues across the piece, including at the Department of Health and Social Care. I would be delighted to have further meetings on the subject with my hon. Friend, if that would be useful to him.

Seema Malhotra: Mr Speaker, the Minister said at the beginning that he respected you and this House, but does he not accept that the reason that we are here now, having this urgent question, is precisely because the opposite has happened? When he answers that question, perhaps he can also enlighten us: has he had discussions with the Welsh Government about the UK shared prosperity fund in the way that he has with the editors of the national newspapers?

Simon Clarke: There is absolutely no doubt that we have observed all the proprieties by not talking about tax measures in any of the discussions that have been had. I am in regular contact with the Welsh Government. Indeed, I met the Welsh Finance Minister last week and will be speaking to her again tomorrow morning ahead of the Budget, in the usual way.

Jacob Young: I welcome the announcements that have been trailed ahead of the Budget, in particular the latest announcement on the national living wage. Will my right hon. Friend outline how this national living wage will help my constituents and his in Teesside?

Simon Clarke: Ensuring that work always pays is one of the foundational principles of this Government. It is what differentiates us, frankly, from the last Labour Government, who had a series of policies that, I am afraid, did not incentivise work. That led to what the then editor of The Spectator termed,
“the most expensive poverty in the world.”
I am afraid that that was the unfortunate legacy of a series of failed policies. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that the national living wage rise is the right thing to do. I am excited about that policy, and it continues our strong track record of ensuring that our plan for jobs is matched by rising living standards.

Jonathan Edwards: Diolch, Mr Speaker. Many of the pre-Budget announcements relate to the so-called levelling-up agenda, of which the community renewal fund is a key element. Given the delay in announcing the initial successful bidders, will the Minister press the Chancellor at this late stage to make an announcement tomorrow to extend the delivery time for those that were successful in the first phase?

Simon Clarke: I would be happy to look at the hon. Gentleman’s recommendation, but there will be further announcements on the community ownership fund tomorrow.

Andy McDonald: Mr Speaker, you may have read in the press that the Chancellor is preparing to tell us tomorrow that the national minimum wage will increase to £9.50 next April, but that remains  way below the income that a worker can live on. Worse still, the savage age discrimination will carry on, with young people in Middlesbrough, across Teesside and across the country having to suffer appallingly low pay. The current rate for under-18s is £4.62 an hour. That is an increase of just 98p since 2010, meaning that their wages have gone down in real terms. Will the Government stop treating young people with such disdain, commit to scrapping the age bands and uplift the national minimum wage to £15 an hour, so that all workers can live fully flourishing lives?

Simon Clarke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. Clearly, he might want to take this matter up with the leader of his own party, as I understand that it has been the subject of some disagreement. The Government are of course committed to ensuring that younger workers get fair pay. We obviously have to balance that against the wider commitment that we have to ensuring that we do not perpetuate the serious situation of youth unemployment that we inherited from the last Labour Government. There will be good news for younger workers in the Budget tomorrow.

Drew Hendry: These decisions made by the Government deeply affect people’s lives: energy bills are rocketing; inflation is up; food and petrol prices are up; furlough has ended; and universal credit has been cut. It is no wonder that Citizens Advice Scotland is predicting that my constituents and others will face a really tough winter. They then face an increase in national insurance. With that in mind, is the Chancellor really going to give his old pals in the City a tax cut in the Budget tomorrow?

Simon Clarke: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the £500 million household support fund is being put in place precisely to ensure that we protect families through the winter that lies ahead. That comes on top of all the measures that we have put in place to ensure that we adjust for the cost of living. This Government tax people very fairly. The richest 1% and 5% are paying more tax than they did under the last Labour Government. That includes the banks, which pay their fair share as part of a wider economic settlement.

Catherine West: VAT receipts have been climbing, which is a good thing. Will the Treasury look at helping those with very high fuel bills—for example, those with many children, those who have to keep their heating on during the day, those who are ill and pensioners—over the coming winter? Will the Minister consider that as part of tomorrow’s package—which, of course, will be announced tomorrow?

Simon Clarke: The household support fund is specifically targeted in order to help with the cost of living. Indeed, much of it is ringfenced for families with children, reflecting the sense of what the hon. Lady is saying. The energy price cap works with that, as does the warm home discount. The warm home discount is becoming more generous next year, as the number of people who benefit from it rises from 2.2 million to 3 million, and its value rises from £140 to £150. Those are the kinds of measures that we will continue to look at. The Chancellor will speak about VAT as part of the wider Budget settlement tomorrow.

Jack Dromey: Eighteen years ago, I was deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. I was a founder member of the drive for the living wage, when we organised 3,000 cleaners in Canary Wharf and the City of London. I agree with the Resolution Foundation that the proposed increase would “not remotely compensate” those who will lose £1,000 as a result of the cut to universal credit. With workers facing a cost of living crisis, rising energy costs, rising inflation, rising fuel costs and rising food prices, is it not the case that workers’ living standards will continue to be squeezed as the Government give with one hand and take away with another?

Simon Clarke: No, I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s point. We remain committed to our ambitious target of the national living wage reaching two thirds of median earnings by the end of the Parliament and expanding it to include workers over the age of 21. We have done an awful lot to help with living standards—doubling the personal tax threshold, doubling free childcare, expanding free school meals for all five to seven-year-olds, and introducing the new household support fund and the energy price cap—and further measures will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor tomorrow.

Chi Onwurah: I suppose the attraction of delivering a Budget by press release is that it bypasses this House, so when the Government announce billions of pounds to level up transport in the north, I do not get to say that there is nothing in that for Newcastle, where extortionate bus fares are part of the cost of living crisis that my constituents are facing; and when the Minister says that the minimum wage is going up, I do not get to point out that universal credit recipients in Newcastle will still be £800 a year worse off. Why does he think that the Government should not be accountable to the people of Newcastle upon Tyne Central?

Simon Clarke: I absolutely do believe that we should be accountable to the people of Newcastle upon Tyne Central. That is why I am here. It is why there will be a five-day Budget debate over the course of the days ahead. It is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will appear in front of a Select Committee. On the hon. Lady’s point about transport settlements, we need to unlock devolution in north-east England. My No. 1 ask of the Labour authorities in that part of the world would be to make sure that they get their act together and unlock a devolution settlement.

Stephen Flynn: As well as knowing what the Government will be doing, we also know what they intend not to do. We know that they will not be investing in carbon capture and underground storage in Scotland, and we know that they will not be match-funding the Scottish Government’s £500 million just transition fund. Yet the Treasury has raked in some £350 billion of oil revenues over the decades, so why is the Minister’s Department now turning its back on Scotland?

Simon Clarke: Leaving aside tired clichés about our attitude to Scotland, which I am afraid is all we ever get from SNP Members, we are of course a Government committed to the success of the whole of the United  Kingdom. The Budget will contain within it many things that reflect the major benefits of the Union for Scotland just as much as for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As a proud British citizen, I would not accept the sense of what the hon. Gentleman says. On carbon capture, utilisation and storage, the Scottish project remains the first reserve, as he will know. We intend to take this project forward, alongside a flourishing North sea oil and gas sector, offshore wind and all the things that will go together to reflect the £30 billion-worth of commitments made as part of our net zero strategy.

Matt Western: Thank you for agreeing to this urgent question, Mr Speaker, because this is getting out of hand, as I am sure you will agree. Only yesterday, I asked the Universities Minister if she would announce the decision on the Augar review and the Government’s response publicly in the Chamber, and she would not commit to that. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, you could follow that up with the Department for Education and make sure that the announcement actually is delivered here in the Chamber. In the past few days we have had more announcements than you get on the Clapham omnibus about the Budget, much of it commercially sensitive. When were the newspapers given details of the announcements the Government were making in the Budget, and when was the advisory board of the Conservative party made aware of some of these announcements?

Simon Clarke: I really do not know what the hon. Gentleman is implying with his question, but clearly no impropriety has occurred. All announcements are made as usual through the normal Treasury and cross-Government processes to make sure that those announcements are released to the media.

Jim Shannon: Does the Minister agree that being drip-fed Budget snippets from the press rather than in this House makes it more difficult for right hon. and hon. Members to fully consider the principles without the biased slant of the media? Is he prepared to consider allowing Members access to the Budget the night before, under strict embargo, to enable consideration of the documentation rather than media presentation?

Simon Clarke: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is of course one of the most assiduous Members of this House. Clearly we all look to make sure that the Budget documentation is as full and as frank as possible—we have the work of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility as well—to make sure precisely that the Budget debate that follows can be as fully informed as possible as to the full implications of all the measures that are announced.

Lindsay Hoyle: Can I just ask for a little clarification from the Minister? He has made an announcement to the House that I am not sure is correct: he said that it is a five-day debate, but I thought it was only four days.

Simon Clarke: My apologies, Mr Speaker: it is a four-day debate.

Lindsay Hoyle: At least we have heard it in the House first.

Point of Order

Alison Thewliss: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will remember that last Wednesday at COP26 questions I asked the Minister for COP if he would meet me to discuss the concerns of some businesses in my constituency that are having difficulty as a result of the COP restrictions that have been put in place, and he committed at the Dispatch Box to have that meeting with me. He now appears to be reneging on his promise to me in this House to have a meeting. Is there anything you can do, Mr Speaker, to advise what I should do in these circumstances, because the businesses in my constituency are extremely frustrated and disappointed to have this response from the Minister? I know and I accept that he is busy, but he made a promise in this House, and surely that should mean something.

Lindsay Hoyle: I have great faith in the Minister, and I am sure that as President of COP his word is his bond. I am sure that he will be listening to this and arranging his diary forthwith. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will remind him of that commitment, and I would expect him to fulfil it.

Bill Presented

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Greg Hands, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Elizabeth Truss, Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Secretary Nadhim Zahawi and Secretary Grant Shapps, presented a Bill to make provision for the implementation of a regulated asset base model for nuclear energy generation projects; for revenue collection for the purposes of that model; for a special administration regime for licensees subject to that model; and about the circumstances in which bodies corporate are not associated with site operators for the purposes of programmes relating to funding the decommissioning of nuclear sites.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 174) with explanatory notes (Bill 174-EN).

Electricity Grid (Review)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Alan Brown: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Government and Ofgem to conduct and act on a review of the electricity transmission grid and associated charges, to include consideration of abolishing charge differentials based on geographic location, incentivising renewable energy generation to maximise energy output, and minimising the passing on of charge fluctuation risk to consumers in the form of higher prices; and for connected purposes.
The driver behind this Bill is that Scotland currently has the highest grid charges in Europe. The Tory Government shrug their shoulders and say, “It’s nothing to do with us—it’s a matter for Ofgem.” However, they are the ones who set the rules for Ofgem to implement. What is the point of the Government bragging about a net zero target for 2050 and a plan to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2035 when they do not seem capable of seeing the bigger picture? While they probably do not care about Scotland having the highest grid charges—it fits their perception that Scotland is remote, so additional cost makes sense, and that anyway it is just us Scots whingeing again—the reality is that continuing as is jeopardises their own net zero plans as well as Scotland’s own targets. It makes a mockery of their levelling up agenda—which is, in reality, just about targeting the red wall seats of north England and the midlands. That agenda was confirmed last week by the disgraceful decision to class the Scottish carbon capture and storage cluster as a reserve.
The current grid charges system was introduced in 1992 following privatisation of the electricity market. Back then, it was based on the concept that electricity is generated from coal, gas, oil or large nuclear stations. With this embedded concept, the charging system is now still geared at incentivising power generation sites close to the centres of population—or, more accurately, the closer to London the better. It is utterly absurd that the UK Government have taken the welcome step to phase out coal-fired electricity generation but are retaining a grid charges system that is based on where to build coal-fired power stations. It is completely bonkers. The obvious strategy would be to consider what a future grid will look like, where are the best locations for the generation of clean renewable energy and what grid upgrades will be required to facilitate that, and then analyse the long-term costs of the grid upgrades and devise a fair system of charging to facilitate that. That is exactly what this Bill seeks to do.
Let us be clear: having the highest geographical charges in Europe creates an uneven playing field when looking for investment. The majority of the countries in Europe do not have locational charges. The ones that do charge way less than is imposed in Scotland. If a developer built a grid-connected turbine in each of these countries—Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Austria, France, Slovakia, Romania and Belgium—the combined locational charges for those nine turbines across nine countries would be less than the charge imposed on a single turbine in the north of Scotland. That illustrates the investor competition for Scotland, let alone the fact that  so many other countries, such as the Netherlands and Germany, do not impose geographical charges. Worse, the UK Government are building interconnectors that allow electricity imports that are exempt from these grid charges. I am supportive of an interconnected energy market, but the system incentivises international investors to invest in other countries.
Scotland has 25% of Europe’s offshore wind potential, so future planning should be about how to maximise that, especially when the UK Government have a 40 GW target for offshore wind by 2030, which is reliant on 10 GW coming from Scotland. Scotland also has fantastic potential with floating offshore wind, especially with the Hywind project already operational. Forward thinking should be about maximising opportunities for these leading technologies.
It is not just us in the Scottish National party saying that change is required; the wider industry is saying it too. ScottishPower, SSE, Vattenfall, RWE, Red Rock Power, RenewableUK and Scottish Renewables have all called for changes to the grid charging regime. Indeed, a survey by SSE showed that 93% of industry stakeholders support reform of the current transmission charging regime. Some 84% of respondents stated that the network charging system acts as a barrier to the delivery of their renewable projects in Scotland. What does it take for the UK Government to sit up and listen?
What could be more iniquitous than suffering the highest grid charges in Europe? Well, if we look within the UK energy market, Scotland is further disadvantaged, especially in comparison to southern England. Connections to the south of England result in generators being paid to connect to the grid. It is a physical impossibility to have a negative cost of managing one area of the transmission system, so this therefore appears to be another method of levelling down, not up. The Beatrice array off the coast of Moray pays a unit electricity price of £4.50 to connect to the grid. A comparator in southern England is paid £1.50 per unit of energy. Why is the leader of the Scottish Tories not speaking up about that? Another example in numbers is that a 1 GW site off the north Scottish coast will pay £38 million a year to connect to the grid, yet the same sized offshore windfarm connecting to southern England will get paid £7 million a year. That is a £45 million a year differential between the Scottish and English sides. Over 20 years, that is nearly a £l billion difference.
Scottish offshore windfarms are now 20% more expensive than those in English waters. When the lowest price is winner takes all in the contracts for difference auctions, that becomes a major issue and puts investment in offshore renewable energy in Scotland at risk. It means less direct jobs and less supply chain work, and it potentially hampers a just transition for the oil and gas industry.
The effects of the charging burden on Scottish projects can already be seen. In the 2015 auction round, Scottish projects accounted for almost 40% of the offshore wind contract awards. By the 2019 round, it was down to less than 10%. Surely that is not an intended consequence. Worse, if nothing is done, in the next few years, Scottish grid charges will be charged at a rate equivalent to 50% of the strike rate producers achieved for selling their energy, making it impossible to compete with those bidding in English waters. It is madness to have production prices falling and some of the best sites in Europe, but  a grid charging regime blocking the route to market. By default, it means Scottish projects need to have 20% greater efficiency or outputs compared with southern England sites to be able to compete. However, higher output equals higher charges, so the cycle continues.
Another point about the current charging system is price volatility. While the actual cost of maintaining and operating the grid remains stable, the charging prices vary by up to 700%, demonstrating that the system is not fit for purpose. As companies cannot predict these fluctuations, it is a risk factor they have to add to their project costs. By the end of this decade, that will be costing consumers an estimated £400 million a year in wasted costs.
In terms of the best use of billpayers’ money when considering the future energy mix, we should not be spending billions of pounds on new nuclear. At £23 billion, Hinkley Point C is the most expensive power station in the world. Despite complete market failure in the nuclear sector, the UK Government still want to spend £20 billion- plus on Sizewell. Worse, these nuclear sites will get paid under the current regime to connect to the grid—more hidden subsidies for nuclear. Instead, investment should be committed to pumped storage hydro such as SSE’s Coire Glas and the Cruachan dam extension being planned by Drax. That creates renewable energy ready to be dispatched when required and at a fraction of the cost of nuclear. An Imperial College report suggests the system could save £700 million a year.
Wave and tidal is also at the stage of being able to scale up. All that is needed for the next stage of scaling up is some ringfenced money in the forthcoming contracts for difference auction. Money has been ringfenced for floating wind, so why not wave and tidal? I urge the Minister to act urgently, before it is too late. We cannot have another Westminster decision that adversely impacts Scotland. The Orbital O2 tidal generator situated off the coast of Orkney is already connected to the grid and working. It has 80% UK content, and it was the first vessel launched from Dundee in 40 years. Surely the UK Government want to maximise this technology?
It is clear that change is required, with a rounded energy policy that maps out a route to net zero, a policy that incentivises renewable energy production where it is best suited, an end to Scotland having the highest locational grid charges in Europe and an end to the volatility of the system operational charges. This Bill seeks to do that. I hope that the UK Government see sense, but there is an alternative: Scotland having full control of its destiny.

Lindsay Hoyle: There is nothing like using every second of the 10 minutes. Well done.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alan Brown, Alison Thewliss, Gavin Newlands, Patricia Gibson, Drew Hendry, Deirdre Brock, David Linden, Dr Philippa Whitford, Brendan O’Hara, Carol Monaghan and Stephen Flynn present the Bill.
Alan Brown accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 175).

Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Ordered,
That the Order of 22 June 2021 (Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern Bill) (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Alan Mak.)

Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1 - Appointment of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

‘(1) The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 16A (Appointment of First Minister, deputy First Minister and Northern Ireland Ministers following Assembly election), in subsection 4, omit the words “of the largest political designation”.
(3) For subsection (5) of that section, substitute—
“(5) The nominating officer of the second largest political party shall nominate a member of the Assembly to be the deputy First Minister.”
(4) In section 16(B) (Vacancies in the office of First Minister or deputy First Minister), in subsection (4), omit the words “of the largest political designation”.
(5) For subsection (5) of that section, substitute—
“(5) The nominating officer of the second largest political party shall nominate a member of the Assembly to be the deputy First Minister.”
(6) In section 16C (sections 16A and 16B: supplementary), omit subsection (6).’—(Stephen Farry.)
This new clause provides that the deputy First Minister can come from the second largest political party without prescribing that the post be filled by a member from the second largest designation.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Stephen Farry: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Appointment of Joint First Ministers—
‘(1) The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection 16A (appointment of Ministers following Assembly election), leave out subsections (4) to (7) and subsection (9), and insert after subsection (3)—
“(3ZA) Each candidate for the office of Joint First Ministers must stand for election jointly with a candidate for the other office.
(3ZB) Two candidates standing jointly shall not be elected to the two offices without support of two thirds of members present and voting.
(3ZC) The Joint First Ministers—
(a) shall not take up office until each of them has affirmed the terms of the pledge of office; and
(b) subject to the provisions of this Part, shall hold office until the conclusion of the next election for First Ministers.”
(3) In subsection (3)(a) the reference to “subsections (4) to (7)” is replaced by a reference to “subsections (3ZA) to (3ZC)”.
(4) Any reference in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to the First Minister or deputy First Minister is to be taken as a reference to the Joint First Ministers.’
This new clause provides for the joint election of First Ministers, and further prescribes a weighted majority vote in the Assembly, without the use of designations, for this purpose.
New clause 3—First Minister and deputy First Minister to be referred to as Joint First Ministers—
‘The First Minister and deputy First Minister elected under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are to be referred to as Joint First Ministers, and all references in that Act (other than to their election) to the First Minister and deputy First Minister are to be read as references to the Joint First Ministers.’
This new clause provides that First Minister and deputy First Minister be referred to as Joint First Ministers reflecting their identical status, powers and responsibilities.
New clause 4—Appointment of First Ministers—
‘(1) The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection 16A (appointment of Ministers following Assembly election), leave out subsections (4) to (7) and subsection (9), and insert after subsection (3)—
“(3ZA) Each candidate for the office of joint First Ministers, must stand for election jointly with a candidate for the other office.
(3ZB) Two candidates standing jointly shall not be elected to the two offices without one or more of the following measures of representational support—
(a) the support of a majority of members, a majority of designated Nationalists and a majority of Unionists; or
(b) the support of 60 per cent of members, 40 per cent of designated Nationalists and 40 per cent of designated Unionists; or
(c) the support of two thirds of members.
(3ZC) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister—
(a) shall not take up office until each of them has affirmed the terms of the pledge of office; and
(b) subject to the provisions of this Part, shall hold office until the conclusion of the next election for First Ministers.
(3) In subsection (3)(a) the reference to “subsections (4) to (7)” shall be replaced by a reference to “subsections (3ZA) to (3ZC)”.’
This new clause would restore the Good Friday Agreement provision for joint election by the Assembly of the joint First Ministers.
Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 5, line 22, after “Assembly” insert “users of services,”
This amendment would ensure that Ministers and Departments are accountable and responsible to users of services, as well as to the Assembly and the public.
Amendment 6, page 5, line 25, at end insert—
“(ba) actively support the adoption and implementation of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland that is faithful to the stated intention of the 1998 Agreement”
This amendment requires Northern Ireland Ministers to support actively the adoption of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland as envisaged in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 and in paragraphs 5.26 to 5.29 of Annex E (Rights, language and identity) to The New Decade, New Approach Deal 2020.
Amendment 9, page 5, line 25, at end insert—
“(ba) ensure all reasonable requests for information from the Assembly, users of services and individual citizens are complied with; and that Departments and their staff conduct their dealings with the public in an open and responsible way;”
This amendment would ensure that the principles of transparency and openness, as well as a duty to comply with requests for information, as outlined in Strand One, Annex A of the Good Friday Agreement, are maintained within the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
Amendment 10, page 5, line 25, at end insert—
“(ba) seek in utmost good faith and by using their best endeavours to implement in full the Programme for Government in “The New Decade, New Approach Deal” as regards the transparency, accountability and the functioning of the Executive;”
This amendment requires Ministers to implement the Programme for Government agreed in January 2020, as it relates to transparency, accountability and functioning of the Executive.
Amendment 11, page 5, line 25, at end insert—
“(bb) seek in utmost good faith and by using their best endeavours to implement in full any future deal between the parties to “The New Decade, New Approach Deal” which may be approved by the Assembly;”
This amendment requires Ministers to implement the any future deal on the operation of devolved government in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 12, page 5, line 2, at end insert—
“(ca) abide by and implement in every respect Annex A to Part 2 of “The New Decade, New Approach Deal” as regards the transparency, accountability and the functioning of the Executive;”
This amendment requires Ministers to strengthen and enforce the Ministerial Code and other codes including the Special Adviser Code of Conduct.
Amendment 2, page 5, line 28, at end insert—
“(da) comply with paragraph 2.11 of the Northern Ireland Executive Ministerial Code in relation to the inclusion of ministerial proposals on the agenda for the Northern Ireland Executive, with areas for resolution to be recorded in the list of “Executive papers in circulation” against those papers still outstanding after the third meeting, in accordance with paragraph 62(c) of section F of the Fresh Start Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan;”
This amendment moves from guidance to statute a commitment in the Fresh Start Agreement providing that an item may not be blocked for more than three meetings of the Executive through lack of agreement on the agenda.
Amendment 7, page 5, line 32, at end insert—
“and by supporting the establishment of the consultative Civic Forum established in pursuance of paragraph 34 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement and by obtaining its views on social, economic and cultural matters;”
The intention of this amendment is to require Northern Ireland Ministers to support the reestablishment of a consultative Civic Forum for Northern Ireland to enable the Assembly to obtain views on social, economic and cultural matters as envisaged in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998.
Amendment 13, in clause 5, page 7, line 12, at end insert—
“(5A) When a petition of concern is lodged against a measure, proposal or a decision by a Minister, Department or the Executive (“the matter”), the Assembly shall appoint a special committee to examine and report on whether the matter is in conformity with equality and human rights requirements, including the European Convention on Human Rights and any Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
(5B) Consistent with paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 (Strand 1) of the Belfast Agreement, a committee as provided for under subsection (3) may also be appointed at the request of the Executive Committee, a Northern Ireland Minister or relevant Assembly Committee.
(5C) A committee appointed under this section—
(a) shall have the powers to call people and papers to assist in its consideration; and
(b) shall take evidence from the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission.
(5D) A committee appointed under this section shall—
(a) report in terms that reflect evidence regarding human rights and equality assessments relating to the matter; and
(b) identify relevant clarification, adjustments and amendments (in the case of legislation) and/or other assurances which would address the stated concerns.
(5E) The Assembly shall consider the report of any committee appointed under this section and determine the matter in accordance with the requirements for cross-community support.
(5F) In relation to any specific petition of concern or request under subsection (5B), the Assembly may decide, with cross-community support, that the procedure in subsections (5A) and (5C) shall not apply.”
This amendment provides for a petition of concern to lead to a special procedure, described in paragraphs 11-13 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement, whereby a special committee shall consider the stated concern(s) relating to equality requirements and/or human rights. Such a special committee could also be appointed at the request of the Executive Committee, a Northern Ireland Minister or relevant Assembly Committee.
Amendment 3, page 7, line 19, at end insert—
“(aa) make provision for the minimum period under (a) to be reduced in prescribed circumstances to be determined by the Assembly;”
This amendment gives the Assembly the discretion via its Standing Orders to reduce the timescales in relation to Petitions of Concerns in circumstances to be determined by the Assembly.
Amendment 14, page 7, line 27, at end insert—
“(ca) specify the size, timescale and terms of reference for such a committee; and
(cb) specify procedure(s) to allow for subsection (5E).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 13 and would further clarify how standing orders should make due provision for the working terms for the sort of special committee/ procedure in respect of stated human rights or equality concerns as outlined in paragraphs 11-13 of Strand One of the Good Friday Agreement.
Amendment 4,page7,line31, at end insert—
“(e) make provision to allow petitioners to withdraw a petition of concern at any stage in the process.”
This amendment would allow for a Petition of Concern to be withdrawn and to enable the affected matter of business to proceed without waiting for any statutory timetable to be concluded.
Amendment 5, page 7, line 37, at end insert—
“unless prescribed circumstances to be determined by the Assembly to reduce this period, apply”
Amendment 1, in clause 8, page 8, line 8,a leave out—
“at the end of the period of two months beginning with”
and insert “on”.”
This amendment enables the Bill to be commenced with Royal Assent.

Stephen Farry: At the outset, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to Sir David Amess and pass on my condolences to his family. I also reference his personal connection to the Bill, in that he was one of the Chairs in Committee. True to his character, he handled proceedings professionally, efficiently and with huge impartiality. May I also say, for those MPs who are still new to this place and are still swotting up on procedure, that he was very generous and understanding in that regard? I also thank the House of Commons staff, and the Bill Clerks in particular, for the rapid turnaround of amendments in the past week.
The amendments in my name fall into four broad categories: the election or nomination of First Minister and Deputy First Minister; reforms to petitions of concern; the operation of the Executive; and the commencement date. On the nomination and election of the First Ministers, frankly the current system does not work. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister are identical in terms of status, powers, responsibilities and duties. That one small distinction in wording takes on disproportionate importance—indeed it is only symbolic—and turns our elections into the politics of fear. That risks crowding out consideration of important  economic, social and environmental issues during election campaigns. They are often about keeping the other side out, and yet, in the past, the so-called victorious party has gone on to share power in the same joint office with the largest party from the other designation.
There is speculation that Sinn Féin could emerge as the largest party after the next Assembly election and we have two Unionist parties unwilling to make clear whether in such circumstances they would serve as Deputy First Minister. That is hugely destabilising and a selective application of the rules of democracy as they stand. That could lead us into a difficult situation after the next election. People should clearly adhere to the rules, but that does not preclude us from seeking support for reforms to make the system work more effectively.

Gavin Robinson: It is important to note that there will be issues on which we can find agreement. There will also be issues and amendments before us today on which we cannot find agreement. However, importantly for these proceedings, does the hon. Member agree that, as we discussed in Committee, the Bill fairly reflects what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach and that, unless and until we get joint agreement on a range of issues through another forum, we should not be tinkering around with too many amendments?

Stephen Farry: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments. I agree partially. The Bill does accurately reflect the New Decade, New Approach agreement, but it is worth referencing that that was made back in January 2020. I pay tribute to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), for his endeavours in that regard. I also welcome formally the new Minister of State to his role in the Northern Ireland Office. I am sure we all look forward to working with him in the coming months. However, we have had many political developments since then. One of my great frustrations as a Member of this place and previously as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly is that we often respond to the last crisis and fix the rules to address what has already happened rather than trying to look ahead, anticipate where crises are likely to happen and put measures in place that will make the world operate more easily.
That brings me to new clause 1, in my name, which seeks to address anomalies in the current system. At present, the largest party regardless of designation is entitled to the position of First Minister. However, the Deputy First Minister must come from the largest party from the largest remaining designation. I do not want to get too far ahead of myself as a member of the Alliance party, but it is conceivable that, one day—perhaps after the next election or at some time in the future—a party that is not Unionist or nationalist may be the second-largest party in Northern Ireland and yet it would not be automatically entitled to that position. That would create a certain crisis of legitimacy in terms of the institutions and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister team. With that small measure, we could address that problem.
Secondly, I turn to new clause 4 in in the names of the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) of the Social Democratic and Labour party, which would essentially return to the Good Friday agreement model and the first iteration in the Northern Ireland Act 1998   by providing for an election of a joint team of FM and DFM. That would have two advantages: Assembly endorsement of the team; and reinforcement of the point of collective responsibility from being part of a joint office, not two individuals pursuing separate agendas.
My one reservation is that that relies on the current cross-community voting system, which is fundamentally linked to the designation system. As hon. Members will know, MLAs are required to sign in as Unionist, nationalist or other. I used to be an “other”, which is a wonderful way to describe one’s identity. The system perpetuates the two communities model in Northern Ireland rather than reflecting the diversity that existed in 1998 and that which exists today. There are people with open, mixed and multiple identities, and there are people from different backgrounds who have come to live in Northern Ireland and are not properly reflected in how we frame the operation of the Assembly. That needs reform.
Thirdly, new clause 2, in my name, would return to the Good Friday agreement model but with the distinction that we end up with a purely weighted majority vote—set at two thirds—without reference to any designations whatsoever. That is the fairest and most ideal way to address the issue. It would avoid some anomalous outcomes and inflexibility. Both new clauses on the second and third options would take the opportunity to acknowledge in law and change terminology to confirm and reinforce that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are identical in status, powers, responsibilities and duties.
New clause 3—my final amendment in the group—would reinforce that point about the equality of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in all those respects but outside the context of the nomination or election process. We may not be able to find consensus on that during the Bill’s remaining stages. However, we should take the opportunity outwith that to reflect in law that the FM and DFM are entirely equal, to try to take the heat out of the fairly stupid, meaningless contrast that is made and creates huge tension in our election campaigns. Unfortunately, we would need to make one exception and say that that would not apply to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister election process, because, until we change the system, someone must be put in place first, and someone else second.
I turn to petitions of concern, which have been a source of huge controversy in the past 20 years in Northern Ireland. Petitions of concern have been used and abused well beyond their original intention. They have brought huge discredit, and indeed tension, to the Assembly. It is worth noting that virtually no human rights or equality legislation has been passed by the Assembly. Instead, it has been done either through various periods of direct rule or through the direct intervention of Westminster, notably through the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 in recent times. I welcome the reforms in New Decade, New Approach, but the Alliance party is sceptical about whether they go far enough. People may say that there have not been any petitions of concern since the Assembly’s restoration. That is true, but we have also not had much legislation or any equality or human rights pieces before the Assembly. We must therefore remain vigilant.
I want to test two points with the Government. The first lies in the 14-day timeframe for a petition of concern to be considered, which may turn out to be  a straitjacket. There may well be situations in which a  matter must be considered urgently, such as a legal responsibility or some other deadline that must be met in response to a legislative consent motion. I therefore think it is worth clarifying that the Assembly has the ability within its Standing Orders to vary that 14-day timeframe if the circumstances warrant it. In a similar light, a petitioner or set of petitioners could withdraw their support for a petition if they feel that the issues they were concerned about have been addressed otherwise, rather than having the clock continue. In Committee, the Minister of State’s predecessor did give such reassurances, and I hope that the incumbent will be happy to do the same today.
I turn briefly to the operation of the Executive. Amendment 2 would move the “three meetings rule” from guidance to statute. At present, we have much concern in relation to the petitions of concern issue in the Assembly, but it is not as commonly understood that there are mutual vetoes in the context of the Executive. They must also be addressed. One such veto relates to the formation of the agenda. At times, Ministers have sought to put papers on the agenda but been blocked persistently. The three meetings rule is therefore of particular importance.
I appreciate that others are waiting to speak so, finally, I want to talk about the commencement timeframe. Comments about such timeframes may be unusual on Report, but this is an important point in this particular context. It is unusual to have a Northern Ireland Bill moving through Parliament at the normal pace of a Bill—most tend to be matters of urgency.
The ethos of the New Decade, New Approach agreement was to ensure that the institutions worked better, that we have sustainability and that we try to avoid crises, whether that is collapse of the Assembly or difficulty in forming a new Executive after an Assembly election. It is two years since New Decade, New Approach was agreed, but we are only now putting this into legislation, and we meet in the midst of a potential crisis of non-delivery of other aspects of New Decade, New Approach, with tensions emerging around the protocol and the unrealistic demands made in that regard—the Democratic Unionist party of colleagues sitting in front of me has made threats that it may withdraw its Ministers from the Executive in the near future—as well as speculation about what might happen after the next Assembly election. It would therefore be seen as absurd if we had a crisis when the measures in the Bill could to some extent have been helpful in managing that crisis. However, the Bill might still be in the process of going through Parliament or, even worse, it might have received Royal Assent but, because of the two-month commencement period, we would not be in a position to deploy the measures that might have helped the situation.
Nothing, of course, can overcome lack of trust or people’s determination not to work with the institutions, but if we have measures that can incentivise co-operation and provide space for people to reflect, granting some breathing space, we should take the opportunity, because that situation might well come into effect. The final amendment, therefore, is designed to avoid a situation in which the measures in the Bill, worthy as they may be, cannot be deployed in a real-time crisis. That would be a shame, so I urge the Government to reflect on that point in particular.

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the next speaker, I should just say that this debate must finish at 2.18 pm. We then go on to Third Reading. Obviously, the Front Benchers and Ministers will want some time to wind up, so this part of the debate is limited, depending on how many people wish to speak. I ask Members to bear that in mind.

Julian Smith: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I commend the debate and the discussion about the First Minister’s titles and many of the other issues raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). I am particularly sympathetic about the commencement date. However, I do not believe that this is the right place or the right Bill for many of the other amendments. Even more importantly, they risk the House losing focus on the important issue at hand: the need to implement the clauses in the Bill that assert the continuation of the Executive, with Ministers in caretaker roles, should a First or Deputy First Minister exit power sharing. A number of witnesses in Committee raised the importance of those clauses.
The sustainability clauses were a key part of last year’s New Decade, New Approach agreement and they have not yet been implemented. On Second Reading, in July, my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) highlighted the fact that the Government were already looking tardy. The sustainability clauses were agreed in order to avoid what happened in 2017, which led to three years of no Government in Northern Ireland. Even when the Bill progresses to the other place, I fear that there will be timetabling delays. As we heard, the Bill also has a two-month commencement date, so it will not be implemented for several months.
That is important because, should a First or Deputy First Minister leave office, only two weeks are provided to fill the slots. There is then a duty on the Secretary of State to call an election, but history shows that the election is often not called immediately and Northern Ireland is left ungoverned. The Bill will stop the political parties from thinking that there is an emergency escape hatch when things become politically difficult and will provide for up to 24 weeks to resolve things.
Currently, a number of issues could tempt political parties to use that escape hatch: the protocol, the cultural package, the UK Government’s putative changes to the Human Rights Act 1998, and the legacy proposals. A cocktail of issues are being injected, sometimes recklessly, into the fragile ecosystem of Northern Ireland. In that context, there is a clear and present danger of one Northern Ireland party or more diving for the emergency escape hatch. The Bill will slam shut that cop-out option.
The first clauses of the Bill are designed to put the ball back in the court of any party that seeks to exit the Executive and to shine the spotlight on each political party in Northern Ireland to restore government. Otherwise, the ball comes back into the UK Government’s court. The vast majority of NI citizens want continued devolved government. Yes, there are arguments for change and reforms at the right time, such as new clause 3, but the big issue today is why the Bill has not yet been implemented. More importantly, this House must be clear that the Bill needs to be implemented now.
The practical measures that will allow continued government—now 18 months late—will ensure that Northern Ireland business and citizens get the stability they crave. I therefore urge the Government to get the Bill to the Lords quickly, to remove the two-month commencement date and to ensure that they get behind keeping the pressure on all parties to maintain devolved government and maintaining the Good Friday agreement in all its parts.

Colum Eastwood: First, I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill. As the previous speaker, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), knows well, we had many long hours in the three-year hiatus of the Northern Ireland Assembly discussing a lot of this stuff, but it is deeply depressing that 23 years after the Good Friday agreement we are meeting today to find ways to stop political parties pulling the whole show apart.
The political context is that, a few years ago, Sinn Féin pulled the Assembly down for three full years—waiting lists got longer, schools began to crumble, the economy was not dealt with. Even as we stand here today, the DUP is threatening to bring down the very edifice of government in Northern Ireland. If it does not gets its way, it will pull down the Assembly. It has already withdrawn from a key tenet of the Good Friday agreement, which is north-south co-operation. What does that say to the people out there who are languishing on waiting lists? Is it that the DUP’s little niche issues are more important than dealing with the day-to-day, bread-and-butter problems that people face? It is a terrible indictment of our politics that we are even here discussing this.
I will speak to some of the amendments, in particular those on how the First and Deputy First Ministers are elected and appointed, what those offices do and what they are called. My view is that they have always been joint offices: the Deputy First Minister cannot send a letter without the First Minister saying it is okay; the First Minister cannot answer a question without the Deputy First Minister saying it is okay; and many decisions cannot be made without agreement between the two. Decisions are very infrequently made, it seems, because they do not seem to agree on an awful lot.
What is really concerning, all these years after the Good Friday agreement, is that as of today, none of the Unionist parties has told us what they would do if a nationalist gets enough votes to occupy the First Minister’s position. They are refusing to tell us whether they would even serve in that Government. Well, it is not 1968 anymore, and nationalists will no longer be treated as second-class citizens. People have marched in the streets and been beaten off the streets so that our votes could count just as much as anyone else’s. If Unionist politicians want to come along and lecture anybody about the sustainability of institutions and working together, they must seriously consider their answer the next time they are asked whether they would serve as Deputy First Minister if a nationalist becomes First Minister.
In reality—we have seen this before with the Justice Minister—because of a cosy agreement between a big nationalist party and the DUP, a nationalist is still not allowed to serve in the Department of Justice. In fact it is a joint office, which is why new clause 3 has been tabled, and it is about time we looked at that reality.  From listening to some of the big radio shows in Northern Ireland and watching the television news, it is clear that over the next six months in the run-up to this election—if we are allowed to have an election—we will be faced with constant arguing: “Who will be First Minister and who will be Deputy First Minister? You have to come out to vote to stop these people becoming First Minister.” Even though we have had that for 20 years, the DUP still go into government with them. DUP Members used to say, “We can’t have Martin McGuinness as First Minister. He was a terrorist”, but then they went into government with him, occupied that very same office, and worked with him every day.
Let us, please, get rid of the constant division and debate about who is First Minister and who is Deputy First Minister. I sense we will not get there today, but there is an opportunity, which I ask the Government to consider, to look at new clause 3 and think seriously about how we resolve this issue. The job of the British and Irish Governments in our peace process is to see problems before they arise, and a blind man on a galloping horse can see what is coming round the corner if we do not resolve this issue now.
It suits the DUP and Sinn Féin to have constant debate about what they call each other, because then we are not dealing with the real issues. Our health service is on the point of collapse, 100 times more people are on out-patient waiting lists in Northern Ireland than they are in England, 29% of our children are living in poverty, but there is still no antipoverty strategy because they could not agree it. My constituency has the highest level of unemployment and economic inactivity anywhere across these islands, and we still do not have the 10,000 students on the Magee university campus who were promised and negotiated by me and the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland during those NDNA discussions.
The legacy of the DUP and Sinn Féin’s 15 years in government has been failure, failure and more failure, and they want this argument. Everybody knows that. The Government know it, we know it, the Irish Government know it, and everybody in the House knows it: they want this argument so that they can get away in the smoke for not actually delivering for people. I implore the Government to think seriously about the best way to address this issue. There are a number of good ideas in the new clause, and the best way would be to get rid of the nonsense and pretence that the First Minister is more important than the Deputy First Minister. They are joint First Ministers, so let us begin properly to call them that.
In conclusion, it is a bit rich for the Government to be telling anybody about sustainability in Northern Ireland, when everything they do in Northern Ireland undermines sustainability and the stability of our institutions. That includes how they dealt with the European Union and the DUP, and what they told them about the protocol—apparently there was never going to be a border anywhere. Well, there is one now, and if we were more honest with people we would be in a much better situation.
The NDNA agreement also mentioned 90 days for implementing legacy legislation, but where has that gone? The five parties in Northern Ireland, and every victims’ group, opposes the Government’s proposals on legacy, yet they seem determined to push that forward.  We are still waiting—perhaps today is the opportunity—for the Government to tell us when Irish language and culture legislation will be brought to the House, as agreed at NDNA. There is an opportunity to stop the crisis that we are looking at down the barrel—it is clear it is coming—and for the Government to step in and do something, before we end up with another three years of collapse, when more people will be languishing on waiting lists.

Simon Hoare: Let me echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) said about the need for speed to get this legislation through, which I urge on my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and hopefully on business managers in the other place. This Bill has dawdled for too long. I agree very much with the vast majority of what the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) had to say, and I shall come back to that point in a moment. [Interruption.] It is not “surprise, surprise”, and I say to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) that when somebody speaks sense, one should usually notice and acknowledge it.
Alex Kane, who is known to many in this House, tweeted this morning:
“23 years after the GFA the government is introducing legislation to give a six month ‘life raft’ for parties (on full pay I presume)—”
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to give further consideration to that point when the Bill arrives in the other place—
“if one or other of the big two walks away and collapse looks likely. All it will do is nurture crises over longer periods and bolster instability.”
I know that is the last thing the Government want to do, but we must ensure that we are not bedding in the psychology of instability, if you will. As the hon. Members for Foyle and for North Down (Stephen Farry), and doubtless others, made clear, devolution is not a plaything. It is not there to support or to kick around like a football between two, three or four parties; it is the localisation of decision making. Many right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies will have had inboxes and postbags about this issue that are far fuller than mine as Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
In the last interregnum, what has been happening on education, health, housing and infrastructure? This is about delivering prosperity and peace, lives and livelihoods. All of us who pick up the baton of public service should always remind ourselves of that. Particularly as we come out of covid, the communities of Northern Ireland need us all, whether those working in Stormont or those here, to be resolutely focused on meeting and delivering on their needs, as we will in every other part of the United Kingdom.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The hon. Gentleman is making a sensible point about the extension of a crisis period. We currently have a situation where a crisis could last for days, and we are now potentially extending that by up to six months. Irrespective of what side of the debate they are on, I ask Members across the House to contemplate whether they would tolerate in their part of the United Kingdom a crisis in statute that is allowed to perpetuate itself for up to six months before  it ultimately comes to the buffer zone, or to the point at which it has to be delivered. That point needs to be considered by all hon. Members when they vote on this measure.

Simon Hoare: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who serves with me on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Thank heavens this is not being dealt with as emergency legislation and rushed through in a 12-hour sitting, but once again it speaks of dealing with Northern Ireland as something other, or as something different, and with a set of circumstances and rules that none of us would find tolerable in England and my constituency of North Dorset, or in Wales or Scotland. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that we should all be conscious of.

Colum Eastwood: I remember going through these negotiations with some of the people who are now in the Chamber. In reality—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree with this—it was DUP Members who pushed hardest for long periods to try to resolve some of these issues. They were responding to the issue that Sinn Féin had collapsed the institutions last time around. Of course, this time they are the ones threatening to do that, but that was largely the DUP position, and it is strange to hear the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) now opposing it.

Simon Hoare: All I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that I was not privy to those discussions, but we are where we are. We must realise that things have clearly moved on. The operation and reform of the protocol is sitting here like an elephant in the Chamber, but it speaks to my point that the workable delivery of devolution should not be used as a plaything for other issues.
That takes me to the point that the hon. Member for North Down made about democracy. We cannot have a functioning democracy in these islands that is effectively based on the Henry Ford model of selling a car. Henry Ford used to say, “You can have any colour as long as it’s black.” We cannot say, “You can have as many elections as you like as long as I turn out as the winner. If I don’t—if the public have spoken and I haven’t been successful—I won’t accept the result. I will tear the edifice down,” in some sort of democratic political toddler’s temper tantrum. That is not how we do it. Democracy only works when all of us who win take up the weight of winning with responsibility and those who lose accept that they have lost and somebody else has won. If people do not abide by that simple equation, that is not democracy, and that should cause us all considerable concern.
My final point, echoing what the hon. Member for North Down said, is that in the system that we have for sorting these things out, the language that is used—“Unionist”, “nationalist” and “other”—may be past its sell-by date. It hard-bakes into the language and the systems a previous age. It does not reflect Northern Ireland as it is today. This is not the time for it, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that at some point in the not-too-distant future, serious, considered, sober thought needs to be given to how these issues are addressed in order to present Northern Ireland to the rest of the world, and to the rest of the United Kingdom, as it is  today and not as it was 20 years ago, or 40 or 50 years ago. We need a contemporary review of that in order to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
My cri de coeur is for all parties to understand that devolution, and its delivery of public service and improvement of life for those who live in Northern Ireland, is not something to be taken lightly. It is not a plaything to be kicked around for cheap party political points.

Jim Shannon: It is always a pleasure to speak on any issue in this House, but particularly on issues to do with Northern Ireland. I welcome the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), to his new role and wish him well. He rightly came to see the No. 1 constituency in Northern Ireland, Strangford, before he had seen anywhere else. We are very pleased to have had the opportunity to have him there, and we wish him well in his role.
As always, the debate has been clear, and my party’s reasoning has been clearer. I am not enamoured with the form of government in Northern Ireland, and I do not believe that it can or does work, as has been demonstrated very clearly over the last couple of years. I absolutely believe in the right of this place to govern and legislate. However, as my colleagues have said, this is a matter that should be debated in the appropriate forum and not tagged on to this Bill. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee at Stormont is the mechanism to do that.
It grieves me that decisions were made in this place when they should have been made through the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I want to put that on the record. That leads me to an issue that I feel must be highlighted again: this Bill aims to secure a working Assembly with the best mechanism possible, yet it seems that this House interferes at will when public opinion calls for it. That must come to an end. It is time that this place gave the Northern Ireland Assembly the authority to make decisions.
During covid, despite discussion of an abortion Bill, this Government determined that they would bring in abortion in Northern Ireland in the most open way not just in the UK but in all of Europe. Along with colleagues, I strongly resented that, and I still resent it. We now face this Government acting on the NDNA deal, but only when it comes to the Irish language. With great respect to the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), for me this issue is as clear as a bell. The rest of the important provisions, such as health and education, on which there were goals and aims, have been left to trickle through, yet the Irish language is to be given priority by this place.
As my party’s health spokesperson, it concerns me greatly that across Northern Ireland, in a post-covid world, the waiting time for an urgent hip replacement is upwards of five years, for cataract surgery it is upwards of four years, and breast reconstruction for breast cancer survivors is years down the line, with no date whatsoever. I have talked to some of my constituents back home who are fluent and interested Irish language speakers, and they tell me that they want to see priority given to issues such as health and education, to ensure that they are addressed first. I am not sure that the people of the Province believe that the Government should step in and fund these measures.
There are children out of education. There are many schools in my area that are awaiting refurbishment or rebuilding, and that cannot get the support they need in the form of classroom assistants. There is a big issue, too, with assessment for those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism. We get referrals every day of the week for those things. There is a generation of children who have had the option to learn music stripped from them, as budget slashing has meant a choice between culture or a teacher.
Those are real issues that impact every one of my constituents, whether they are Unionist or nationalist, whether they are in favour of the Irish language or against it. Those are the issues that people tell me clearly that they want to see addressed. I resent that priority has been given to one aspect of the NDNA over the life-changing aspects, and I urge the Minister to allow the Assembly to carry out its duties according to priority and not political machinations.
I understand the need to support the measures before us today, but I must put on the record my concerns about the prioritisation of some of the spending that the Government have looked towards. Clearly, we should be spending more on policing, because we need more police officers on the streets across Northern Ireland. We have a dearth of them at the moment. The training college is turning out as many as it can as quickly as it can, but the places of those who retire are still not being filled. Improvements need to be made in health, education and policing, and that is where I would like to see the focus.
At the same time, I urge the Government to do the right thing and allow the Assembly to prioritise need over wish and people over politics, and to make our own determination on Northern Ireland issues. I believe in devolution; I always have. I want the devolution that we have in Northern Ireland to achieve something. History has shown that direct rule is not beneficial for the people of the Province. I will therefore support the Bill, hoping against hope that Lord Frost will achieve what he sets out to achieve and ensure that Northern Ireland stops being a third country to the UK and is accepted as an integral part of it.
The next step will be asking the Government not to treat the Assembly as a local council with minor responsibilities, but to allow it to take tough decisions in a democratic manner. I believe that is the foundation of the Bill, and that is why I will support it, but I say to the Minister—I hope that he will respond—that there are priorities that need to be addressed first. I think we all realise that, and my constituents tell me that. Health, education, the economy and policing are where spending should be prioritised—not the Irish language.

Alex Davies-Jones: May I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), to his place? I thank his predecessor, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). He and I enjoyed a very cordial relationship, and I hope that the right hon. Member and I can continue in that fashion for the people of Northern Ireland.
I rise to speak to amendments 6 and 7 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). The instability in recent months has been unsettling for all of us who cherish the Good  Friday agreement and believe that its institutions and the principles that underpin it represent the best way forward for Northern Ireland.
As ever, however, that instability has been felt most keenly by the people of Northern Ireland. It is clear that they need a stable, functioning Executive to meet the enormous health and economic challenges facing Northern Ireland. Indeed, as we have heard, a third of the entire population are languishing on health waiting lists, nearly 300 children are without a post-primary place for next year, and of course recovery from covid remains ongoing.
For all political leaders in Northern Ireland, a stable, functioning Executive must be the priority in the coming days and weeks. We welcome attempts to safeguard power sharing and improve the sustainability of the Executive and the Assembly. The lessons of the past should offer a clear warning to all of us. Institutions are much easier to collapse than they are to get back up and running. Recent events could scarcely have provided a clearer example of why the provisions contained in the Bill are necessary. It is partly for that reason that the Labour party supports the measures contained in the Bill, although we are deeply concerned that the Secretary of State has stalled on the legislation for so long that it will not now be in a position to be a useful tool in the difficult weeks and months ahead.
In Committee, we raised our concerns with the Minister about the provisions on the caretaker institutions to prevent misuse and promote good governance. We urge the Minister to explain what the “within well-defined limits” for the caretaker Executive are. The only definitions of powers are those set out in the ministerial code, but the code is silent on that point. Which ministerial decisions will they be able to take that are significant, controversial or cross-cutting? Will they be able to take decisions with financial implications in a caretaker capacity? The point has been made that the limits will be those set out in the Programme for Government and the specific requirement to refer any measures that are significant, controversial or cross-cutting not within a Programme for Government. It will not have escaped the Minister’s attention, however, that there is no Programme for Government currently. Without clear limits, many of which may simply be carried over from the previous mandate, Ministers are left operating within a legal lacuna. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister on that point.
Turning to our amendments, as I said, Labour supports the Bill but believes there are several missed opportunities for the Government to refocus on delivering on the promise of peace, which has been allowed to stall. We have sought to table amendments to press for the full implementation of the Government’s commitments under the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which, like the Bill, have been delayed for far too long.
The same principle is true for the undelivered promises of the Good Friday agreement on a Bill of Rights, integrated education and housing, women’s rights, and giving communities a real say in decision making. They were the essence of the Good Friday agreement and the shared future it imagined, but progress on those issues has been virtually non-existent over the past decade. The agreements are integral to the trust communities have in the post-Good Friday agreement landscape, and  underpin the devolution of power contained within it. That means there is a responsibility on all of us in Westminster, Dublin and Stormont to faithfully implement the agreements that made it possible. We do not believe that the instability we see can be separated from the failure to deliver on such commitments. The way to guarantee stability is to demonstrate that commitments made will be honoured, and that Westminster is still prepared to step up and honour our side of the bargain.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I am sure the hon. Lady appreciates, as I do, that Wales now has two language Acts and one language measure, and that they have been great sources of pleasure and a celebration of our culture, bringing people together. I am sure, like me, she would ask the Minister when the Irish language Act will be brought forward, because the end of the month is very fast approaching.

Alex Davies-Jones: I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Lady. She is right that the Welsh Language Act 1993 massively strengthened our culture in Wales and us as a country. I press the Minister on when we can expect that legislation to be forthcoming.
Our amendment would help to push forward progress on two key areas: a Bill of Rights and the re-establishment of a civic forum. On a Bill of Rights, we on the Labour Benches are well aware that it is a reserved responsibility for the Secretary of State. The tightly drafted nature of the Bill meant it was difficult to put responsibility on the Secretary of State himself. Nevertheless, a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland was first promised in the 1998 Good Friday agreement, but progress towards its development has repeatedly stalled. The establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights at Stormont earlier this year represents a fresh attempt to move things forward. A Bill was an essential and fundamental safeguard of the Good Friday agreement, and it is simply wrong that it has not been developed. Action is needed now.
We believe the Secretary of State should take action by responding to the forthcoming report of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the House of Commons Committee on a Bill of Rights. The Secretary of State should request that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission provides advice on a Bill of Rights, further to its functions as set out in section 69(7) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Secretary of State would subsequently lay before Parliament legislation giving effect to that advice. It is time to act.
On a civic forum, we believe that that was an important feature of decision making envisaged under the Good Friday agreement. Done well, it would give communities a strong say in decision making. It would give a voice in a deliberative forum to groups not often considered, and could vastly improve decision making in the process. The Good Friday agreement was about a new participative politics. The argument the Women’s Coalition put forward for a civic forum was as an advisory second chamber designed to give the trade union movement and businesses, as well as the community and the women’s movement, a place in political policy making. The prize of that expertise and knowledge is a durable solution that keeps communities on board, one that I hope will be considered going forward.
Finally, I will turn to the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) and my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). On new clause 1, on the appointment of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, it is clear that that was not envisaged by the Belfast-Good Friday agreement, but it is becoming an issue that must be dealt with through collective agreement. Polling shows, particularly among younger people, that identity is no longer binary. People identify as Irish, British and neither. It is far from inconceivable that the first and second-placed parties could come from neither Unionism nor nationalism. That raises important questions for the post-Belfast-Good Friday agreement and post-St Andrews power sharing mechanisms. I urge the Secretary of State not to put off serious consideration on this topic any longer. New clause 1, in the name of the hon. Member for North Down, raises questions that cannot be ignored and it is time for collective discussion.
On new clauses 2 and 4, we recognise the value and logic of a more consensual approach to electing the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as envisaged by the Belfast-Good Friday agreement.
On new clause 3, in the name of the hon. Member for North Down and my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle and for Belfast South, the logic is again clear. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister have exactly the same powers: each have an equal say in the affairs of Northern Ireland and each have a fundamental right for their position to be respected. Equality was the essence and the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, and that is reflected in the joint powers held by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. New clause 3 reflects that, and it is one the Secretary of State should take away and look at seriously. Whichever tradition is elected to the position of First Minister and Deputy First Minister should be respected. Failure to do so simply undermines the principles of the Good Friday agreement. We hope the Minister will seriously consider the proposals.

Conor Burns: It is a pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I might briefly beg the indulgence of the House. I was in my office on Sunday afternoon, having had a very busy period in my first weeks in the Northern Ireland Office. There were some letters on my desk that were addressed as personal. I opened one to find it was a letter congratulating me on returning to Government from our late colleague Sir David Amess. I would just like to place on record my tribute to David. I knew him well. We served together on the all-party parliamentary group on the Holy See and had very many enjoyable trips to Rome. He had an irrepressible and irreverent sense of humour, and one was always cheered up by being in David’s company.
This has been a fascinating debate. It has been a debate, if I may say so, of two parts: the debate that makes reference to what is actually on the Order Paper and the amendments that have been tabled; and then there was the majority of the debate, which bore very little relationship to what is on the Order Paper or the amendments before the House. I will, in endeavouring to respond to various points, try to stick to the amendments and the Order Paper.
The Bill is deliberately limited in its scope. It is designed to implement the agreements reached under New Decade, New Approach. I make this point to all hon. Members who sit for Northern Ireland constituencies. Critically, those agreements were entered into by the parties in Northern Ireland. That is why we deliberately limited what we seek to do here. We are seeking to implement those commitments. We do not think it is the role of Her Majesty’s Government to innovate in this space when future changes, were they to be made, should be driven by the parties in Northern Ireland.

Conor McGinn: I understand entirely the point the Minister makes, but there have been occasions when the Government—both Governments, in fact—have given commitments. One is on an Irish language Act, or legislating for Irish language provisions and the rest of the cultural package. The Government said that they would do that by the end of October if legislation or agreement was not reached in Stormont. A spokesman for the Government reiterated that commitment at the start of this month. Can the Minister tell us when he is going to bring that legislative package forward? If he cannot tell us that today, can he at least give an assurance that the Government will hold to their word, and are still committed to legislating for Irish language and other cultural provisions?

Conor Burns: What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the Government have no intention of introducing an Irish language Act. We will bring forward a cultural package in which Irish language will play a part, but he knows as well as I do that language in Northern Ireland is often analysed very carefully, so we are not proposing such an Act. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have more to say on that in due course.
I read carefully the Committee stage and evidence sessions of the Bill to familiarise myself with the content before this debate. I place on record my appreciation for my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who had a very clear grasp of matters.
In essence, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) summed up the Bill in his intervention on the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). This Bill implements the commitments in New Decade, New Approach; it does no more and no less. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) of course oversaw the negotiations that gave rise to that document. This Bill delivers on our commitments and seeks to put the institutions into a more sustainable format, should we ever—as we hope we do not—reach a position where the institutions again become vulnerable.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) hit the nail on the head: what the people in Northern Ireland want us to focus on is the national health service and deprivation. That was certainly the message I got when I visited the Caw/Nelson Drive Community Action Group in his constituency and the Greater Shantallow Area Partnership. They were talking to me not about the intricacies of governance in Northern Ireland, but about their lives in their community, and how the Executive and the UK Government could make their lives better. That should absolutely be our focus.
There was an outbreak of consensus between the hon. Member for Foyle and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I had a very enjoyable visit  to the latter’s constituency. I met the Portavogie fishermen, who were powerful advocates for what needs to happen to support the fishing sector in Northern Ireland, and I enjoyed my visit to Castle Gardens primary school near the Bowtown estate. The hon. Gentleman, too, talked about health and education. Those are the priorities, and hopefully the stabilising measures we are bringing forward today will ensure that the Executive remains functioning and operational and can get on with those important matters within the devolved space—in particular, the national health service in Northern Ireland, which is under great stress indeed.
Another axis developed during the debate between my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). It is a rare thing that they find common ground and consensus. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset talked about the six months, and I would say to him that six months is a limit, not a target. We are trying to create maximum space, but we would hope that the Northern Irish parties would want to move quickly.
My hon. Friend suggested that perhaps the agreements were past their sell-by date. It is for the parties in Northern Ireland, if they want to innovate in that space, to get together and talk, but we are very clear that our job is to implement, to arbitrate and to oversee the agreements as they stand. Some of the amendments concerning the titles of First Minister and Deputy First Minister and some of the points made about the changing demographics within Northern Ireland may be things that the parties in Northern Ireland will want to come together to address, but we do not believe it is our role to be forcing that change on the parties in Northern Ireland within the devolved space without their consent.
Other parts of the Bill come, of course, from the requests of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, particularly the revisions around the ministerial code. We have taken what they have said and sought to put it into the Bill. We have also sought to return the petition of concern to the purpose for which it was originally intended and to make it more functional.
This is a straightforward and sensible set of proposals, aimed, as I said, at putting the governance system in Northern Ireland on to a more stable footing, to recognise some of the concerns that have been put to us, to honour the commitments that Her Majesty’s Government entered into in New Decade, New Approach. I commend the Bill to the House.

Stephen Farry: I will make some brief comments in closing the debate. First, I thank everyone who took part and presented their views. It was a largely good-natured debate. I thank in particular those on both Front Benches, including on the Government Front Bench, for their comments in that regard.
There is, shall we say, a certain tension between those who want to faithfully implement New Decade, New Approach—I include myself in that category—and those who acknowledge that we are almost two years on from that point, a lot of politics has happened and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge. We must be mindful of the next set of crises that are coming; sadly, this is Northern Ireland, and there is always a crisis around the corner, so we must be mindful to anticipate that in a reasonable way and act ahead of time, for once, rather than having to do so after the crisis emerges.
I am not minded to push any of the amendments to a vote today, and I am sure the House will be pleased with that, but a number of points that have been raised today merit further reflection from all parties. I appreciate that the other place will also want to express its views on this legislation. I hope therefore that there will be further opportunity for both that place and in due course this House to reflect further on some of the points made today.
Perhaps, with some degree of reflection and further consultation with Northern Ireland parties, there may well be the basis for taking forward some further model steps that may provide a slightly more robust system to handle what may be coming around the corner. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Reading

Brandon Lewis: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In doing so, I acknowledge the hard work that has got us to this point. I pay tribute to former Secretaries of State for their role in supporting institutions in Northern Ireland during the most recent collapse. As this is the first time I have been at the Dispatch Box since the sad news, I pay particular tribute to James Brokenshire. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Absolutely; I appreciate the comments from across the House. Both as a friend I have known for just over two decades, and in his role as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he showed truly admirable dedication to the people he represented, to colleagues and to friends, and dedication and commitment to the people of Northern Ireland.
I also want to thank hon. Members from all political parties who participated in debating the merits of the Bill. In particular, I thank the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for their diligent scrutiny efforts and broad support for the measures set out in this Bill, and for their comments today.
I also express my thanks to colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Office of the Speaker of the Assembly, and to those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies in this House, all of whom have contributed to and been part of the work that has led to today, and the negotiations on New Decade, New Approach.
I acknowledge the hard-working civil servants, here in Whitehall and in Belfast. Not only did they support the successful negotiation of the New Decade, New Approach agreement, but they have since helped the progress of the Bill and continually help to deliver on the fundamental commitments made by this Government within that deal—including, I have no doubt, some very late nights supporting my colleague and right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who would have put in those hours of effort in the lead-up to the final agreement of this Bill. I say a huge thank you to everyone who has been involved.
I reaffirm our view that our Union is strongest when its institutions work well, work together and deliver real change on the issues that matter, as colleagues have mentioned today. For Northern Ireland, that means properly functioning institutions, both in Stormont and Westminster, that allow Stormont to focus on the core issues that, as colleagues across parties have said today, must be focused on. To have one third of the population on a waiting list is not good enough for the Northern Ireland health service. Some 23 years since the Good Friday agreement, only to have approximately 7% of the population benefiting from integrated education is not good enough for the people of Northern Ireland, and we must move further on that together.
The Bill is a focused Bill. It will deliver necessary and well overdue reforms to strengthen the sustainability of institutions in Northern Ireland, update the ministerial code of conduct and reform the petition-of-concern mechanism. These measures, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has outlined, were all agreed by the main political parties in Northern Ireland when the Executive were restored, and it would be remiss of us to begin to tweak and change the details here in Westminster without further agreement from the parties. I am confident that those in the Executive and the Assembly will continue to work in the same good faith in which the measures were negotiated, as we in Parliament will; I will come back in a few moments to comments made on that point.
For those reasons, the House should support the Bill’s Third Reading. UK Governments of all colours and types have worked to maintain peace and encourage political stability in Northern Ireland over the decades. I am grateful to the Opposition for welcoming the Bill and the New Decade, New Approach agreement.
The Government accept, however, that this is just one piece of the jigsaw. The positive difference that a restored Executive have made to the people of Northern Ireland is clear to see, despite the great challenges that we have all had as a result of covid-19—particularly as the Executive were restored just days before the covid pressure came upon us all. The past 18 months have demonstrated that a power-sharing Executive can work together under the hardest of circumstances to find compromise and act in the shared interests of all communities in Northern Ireland. The Bill can only empower their capability in that respect.
The Government have listened to and are grateful for all contributions made by Members of this House. I appreciate that it is frustrating for some Members that we have been unable to accept non-Government amendments, despite the great intentions behind them, some of which have been outlined today. That is because many go beyond what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach, although I note the comment from the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) that we are now two years on and that there are some things in New Decade, New Approach that, as time moves on and we learn more, we need to look at.
But my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon is right: we need to focus on delivering what was agreed. As co-guarantors of New Decade, New Approach, we have a duty to ensure that, for all people in Northern Ireland, the measures are delivered as they were agreed upon by the main parties.
Members of this Chamber have expressed eagerness for the delivery of further commitments made under the New Decade, New Approach agreement and will be  glad to hear that we have made good progress. For example, we have appointed the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner; introduced legislation to further enshrine the armed forces covenant in law; published reports on the use of the petition-of-concern mechanism in the Assembly; contributed to the creation of a new Northern Ireland graduate entry medical school in Derry/Londonderry, which I agree we want to see developed further; and supplemented the new deal for Northern Ireland’s £400 million fund to promote Northern Ireland as a cyber security hub, to name just a few things.
There is more to come. We have made commitments to ensure that areas that were committed to be delivered within the mandate for Stormont will be delivered; a cultural package is part of that, and we will do that. We are proud of the progress made thus far. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that New Decade, New Approach is delivered in full. I reassure hon. Members that further progress will be made in due course.
Both for the Executive and for us, covid has meant decisions being made, and pressure being put on legislative time, on decisions and on work done—we all understand that. As we move out of covid, we want to move quickly and get things done, and I hope that the Executive will be doing the same.

Simon Hoare: May I go back to the cultural package? I think the House’s understanding is very clear as to how my right hon. Friend envisages dealing with the matter. However, is he able to say a little more, not so much about what it might be called as about when we might actually see it, if indeed this place needs to see it—or is it his expectation that Stormont will deliver it?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee highlights an important point. It is still technically possible for the Executive to start a procedure that would allow the package to be delivered within the mandate, which has always been the intent, the focus and the desire for those involved in New Decade, New Approach. As I have said, we are very clear that, if it becomes clear that the Executive are unable to do that, or are not moving it forward, we will bring forward legislation to deliver the cultural package as set out in NDNA—no more, but no less. We will do that; I will not go further than that at the moment.
The purpose of the Bill is to implement what was agreed by all parties in the New Decade, New Approach deal. During the passage of the Bill, including this afternoon, there has been sensible, interesting and well-argued debate on the wider institutions and options in Northern Ireland. I look forward to seeing discussions continue among the Northern Ireland parties and to engaging on these matters with them and with colleagues here, as well as to following discussions in the other place, as the hon. Member for North Down rightly outlined.

Stephen Farry: Could the Secretary of State go slightly further and give an assurance that, if the House of Lords considers potential further reforms, and if soundings from the Northern Ireland political parties show consensus in relation to them, the Government will be open-minded about legislating—either in the Bill, which may be the most obvious opportunity, or in other legislation—to put them into effect, particularly ahead of the next Assembly election?

Brandon Lewis: I am always open-minded about listening to ideas and options, particularly for things that come together on which there is agreement between the parties. As others, including my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, have said, the important point is about New Decade, New Approach: the issues that we have dealt with in the Bill were agreed, negotiated and discussed among all the parties in Northern Ireland. We need to see those discussions continuing. If there are things on which all parties agree and on which Westminster is required to legislate, I am very open-minded about looking at them, but there needs to be a discussion that has support in Northern Ireland widely and across the Executive.
We will continue to work closely with the Opposition, the Executive and the parties in Northern Ireland to deliver on the wider promises of our New Decade, New Approach agreement and its commitments for the people of Northern Ireland, including ensuring that we are levelling up as we build back better across the whole United Kingdom. We are resolute—I will continue to be personally resolute and determined—in promoting Northern Ireland’s place in the world, its opportunity and its integral place in and importance to the United Kingdom. In doing so, we will ensure that, with New Decade, New Approach and its commitments, we deliver for all people in Northern Ireland, through New Decade, New Approach and beyond. I commend the Bill to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I remind hon. Members to stand if they want to catch my eye. I call the shadow Minister.

Alex Davies-Jones: Labour helped to secure the precious Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and it remains one of our proudest political legacies. We therefore welcome attempts to safeguard power sharing and improve the sustainability of the Executive, the Assembly and the institutions, which collapsed following a political crisis and took three years to restart.
In Committee and on Report, we outlined at length our concerns about some of the flaws that we saw in the Bill and sought to correct. It is disappointing that those concerns have not been taken on board, particularly as they are likely to be tested sooner or later.
The instability in recent months has been unsettling for all of us who cherish the Good Friday agreement and who believe that its institutions and the principles that underpin it represent the best way forward for Northern Ireland. As ever, that instability has been most keenly felt by the people of Northern Ireland.
Power sharing is the scaffolding of peace. Without it, the Good Friday agreement is fundamentally undermined. It is integral to the trust that communities have in the post-Good Friday agreement landscape, and it underpins the devolution of the powers contained in it. We should not forget the evidence given by Jon Tonge, who reminded us that devolution of power remains overwhelmingly popular: he said that when voters have been asked “What is your preferred mode of governance?”,
“direct rule has never come above 15% as a preferred option. Devolved power sharing is overwhelmingly a preferred option that comes back from…surveys”.––[Official Report, Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Public Bill Committee, 29 June 2021; c. 7, Q5.]
People in Northern Ireland are emerging from one of the most profound health crises that it has ever faced. A third of the entire population are languishing on health waiting lists, nearly 300 children are without a post-primary place for next year’s term and people are recovering from the deepest recession on record. In that scenario, it is unthinkable not to have a functioning Executive. For all political leaders in Northern Ireland, that must be the priority in the coming days and weeks.
It is partly for that reason that the Labour party supports the Bill, but our broader concern relates to the time it has taken to bring the Bill to this stage. We strongly urge the Government to look at how they can fast-track the remainder of its passage. It has now been 22 months since they agreed to implement this legislation to preserve power sharing, and we fear that they are sleepwalking towards a political crisis.
It is also disgraceful that the Secretary of State previously said that we would expect a cultural package and an Irish language Act by the end of October 2021—

Brandon Lewis: Just to be very clear—the hon. Lady should look back at the record—we have always said that we will deliver a cultural package. There has never been discussion of an Irish language Act; that is not what is in NDNA. It is a cultural package. It is important that the Opposition get their facts right.

Alex Davies-Jones: The House was promised the commissioning of an Irish language Act by the end of October 2021. That is where we are now, and it is nowhere to be seen. The Secretary of State’s refusal to give a date is a disgrace, and a betrayal of the people of Northern Ireland.
This legislation has simply come too late to address the current political instability in Northern Ireland. Given the political crisis there, and the ongoing warnings about the collapse of the Executive, Labour pushed for amendments to ensure that it was implemented without delay. As it stands, even if it were passed before Christmas there would still be a months-long commencement clause, leaving it highly unlikely to be in force to prevent instability in the coming months. We would like to hear a firm commitment from the Secretary of State to fast-tracking it through the House of Lords, and a clear timetable for it being enacted. We cannot wait months when we may have weeks. Will the Secretary of State address that? If so, we will work with him to ensure that the Bill is on the statute book within weeks.
The instability that the Bill in part attempts to address has not emerged out of thin air, and I fear that the delay in bringing it forward is symptomatic of the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland. Too often over the past decade, Northern Ireland has been an afterthought here. As the consequences of decisions taken by Ministers have played out in Northern Ireland, the Government have frequently behaved as though they had found themselves at the scene of an accident entirely beyond their control. Too often, Northern Ireland has been overlooked and the work to deliver on the promise of peace has been allowed to stall.
It would be foolish to assume that the provisions of the Bill alone can guarantee stability; they cannot. To do that, Ministers must address the effects of their own  actions, which have shaken faith in Northern Ireland. Progress has stalled and instability has grown. The Belfast/Good Friday agreement has been treated as a crisis management tool, rather than as the vehicle through which lives and communities can be transformed.
Although Labour supports the Bill, we believe that there are several missed opportunities for the Government to refocus on delivering on the promise of peace, which they have allowed to stall. A Bill of Rights, integrated education and housing, women’s rights and giving communities a real say in decision making were the essence of the Good Friday agreement and the shared future that it imagined, but progress on them has been virtually non-existent over the past decade. We do not believe that the instability we see can be separated from the failure to deliver on such commitments. Above all, the way to guarantee stability is to demonstrate that commitments made will be honoured, and that Westminster is still prepared to step up and honour our side of the bargain.
I reiterate our support for the limited measures in the Bill and ask the Secretary of State to speed up the timetable as a matter of urgency, but I wish to make it clear that this is only a start: there is much, much more work to be done.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Richard Thomson.

Richard Thomson: I welcome the Minister to his position, and look forward to working with him. Let me also add my thanks to all who have contributed to the Bill’s passage. Securing a prosperous, peaceful and well-governed Northern Ireland is obviously in the interests of everyone there, but it is also hugely in the interests of everyone throughout these islands, and I believe that the Bill contributes to that in its own small way.
I will try to keep my remarks comparatively brief. Let me say first that democratic politics, wherever it takes place, needs its participants and practitioners to have space in which to talk, discuss, reflect and consult, and, above all, freedom to take the risks involved in finding consensus, acknowledging common ground, and doing the heavy lifting of finding agreement. While deadlines and ultimatums obviously have their place in politics, I think the wider community is much better served when we see that heavy lifting going on, and the better, more secure and sustainable outcomes to which it leads. However, it is not just politics in the abstract that needs space; it is also the business of government.
Any decision taken through the institutions of Northern Ireland is almost certain to be better than any decision that can ever be taken on behalf of Northern Ireland in this place, simply because it will be rooted in those democratic institutions and moulded to the contours of public opinion through the politicians whom we elect, and because it makes local decision makers in Northern Ireland more accountable for the choices they have been elected to make; and the politics is all the more transparent and healthy for it. That is what happens when we give the politics the space in which to work.
To the extent that today’s proceedings help to remove some of the time pressures caused by the need to fill ministerial positions or to form an Administration, we  support the Bill. Obviously having Ministers in office without their positions being confirmed by a current electoral mandate is not ideal, but it does provide continuity in caretaker form, and efficient governance in the absence of an Executive when it comes to dealing with everyday matters. I believe that the Bill has the potential to enhance transparency, accountability and at least the opportunities for good governance, and on that basis it has our support.

Carla Lockhart: Like other Members on both sides of the House, I desire a stable Stormont and a Stormont that offers good government to the people of Northern Ireland. Indeed, I am sure everyone who is present today shares that desire.
When the institutions were torn down by Sinn Féin in early 2017, 1 was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The new Assembly had embarked on a fresh mandate with many promises to tackle the huge waiting lists, but unfortunately Sinn Féin, for the sake of its own selfish, narrow political agenda, shattered the hopes of that Assembly, and they were extinguished. Three years followed that have seen our public services degenerate. The legacy of Martin McGuiness’s resignation is seen to this day: longer waiting lists, a health service that is stretched beyond its limits, a social housing crisis, a roads infrastructure that is crumbling, missed investment opportunities for job creation, and other public services held back.
Of course, for those three years the Government did nothing to face down the petulant, self-serving actions of Sinn Féin, which is deeply regrettable. A kid-glove approach was adopted when it came to confronting Sinn Féin and its reckless actions, and sadly we remain under this threat, for we know that the Government have stated that if the cultural package contained in “New Decade, New Approach” is not delivered to Sinn Féin’s timetable, it will be brought through in this place.
Let me urge the Government to exercise extreme caution in this regard. If they are serious about letting elected representatives govern Northern Ireland, it simply cannot continue to be the case that when agreement cannot be reached or takes longer than one party may wish—and the established trend is that the party jumped to is Sinn Féin—the Government take the powers back to this place. That is the recipe for instability, and it is also the fuel that fires the growing disenchantment and disillusionment in the Unionist community with the whole Stormont edifice.
The Secretary of State knows of the deep hurt many people felt in Northern Ireland when the Government chose to intervene in the provision of abortion. A matter that was so profound to so many people, and on which agreement could well have been reached given time and space, was brought back to this place to placate the pro-abortion lobby and the pro-abortion parties for whom these services could not be delivered quickly enough.
This pick-and-choose devolution settlement only leads to discontent and disillusionment. It makes people ask what is the point of devolution if the Government intervene when the agenda of some must be satisfied. We can strengthen the legislative framework to make the institutions more stable through this Bill, but the greatest threat of instability to the institutions comes from a people that sees no point in them.
In this context, the necessity is for the Government to act to resolve the widespread community concern about the Northern Ireland protocol. Time is moving on, and the patience of this party and the people is not without limit; indeed, it is stretched to breaking point right now. Promises of progress, of conclusions in weeks, are just talk. Let us see the action that is needed to ensure that political stability is restored to Northern Ireland and the damaging impact of this disastrous protocol for all the people of Northern Ireland is consigned to the past.

Colum Eastwood: I entirely agree with what the hon. Lady said about the fact that Sinn Féin should never have pulled the Assembly down, and about the implications of that for our health service and our public sector in general. Now she has moved on to the threat from the Democratic Unionist party over the protocol. If she does not believe that any political party should threaten the institutions of the Good Friday agreement and the outworking of that, which is good government and good public services, will she speak to her party leader and ask him to withdraw his threat to those institutions?

Carla Lockhart: The hon. Gentleman will know that the protocol is damaging everyone within Northern Ireland, both economically and constitutionally, and I would ask him to go and speak to the businesses that are being impacted on a daily basis by the protocol. It certainly undermines the delicate balances of the agreement.
I have listened to the remarks from the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry) and for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), and I am sure that I am not alone in finding it somewhat ironic that those parties that hold the Belfast agreement as some form of religious text have sought so hard to change some of its underpinning elements. We see this in the attempts to change the appointment of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and to change community designation, and in the quest to reform the petition of concern mechanisms, all of which were created and championed by those who now wish to do away with the old and bring in the new for their own political advantage. We in Northern Ireland are well used to the hypocrisy and double standards of the Alliance party and the SDLP, which are there for all to see in their amendments today.

Simon Hoare: The hon. Lady makes a valid point about the views of business being heard during this further stage of negotiation and consultation with regard to the protocol. She is right on that, but I am failing to understand why tearing down Stormont and removing the voices of elected local representatives to make their case would help those businesses.

Carla Lockhart: The hon. Member will know that we have not done that. We want this Government to act on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. Lord Frost and his colleagues have heard clearly about the need to act and the damage that this is doing economically and constitutionally, and the hon. Member would do well to listen to the people of Northern Ireland and not just take it for granted that he is aware of their views.
I reiterate that if this Government continue to placate Sinn Féin’s ransom demands by legislating in this place to satisfy them, devolution will fail. Furthermore, if the provisions of the Belfast agreement around cross-community consent and our constitutional position continue to be set aside in the context of the future  relationship between the UK and the EU pertaining to Northern Ireland, devolution will fail. Regardless of this Bill, the next few weeks will test the Government on their commitment to stable devolution in Northern Ireland.

Claire Hanna: When we last debated this Bill in June, the context was that Sinn Féin had just threatened the collapse of the institutions. Fast forward back to groundhog day, and we are here again with the DUP dangling the future of those same institutions before us. The context of both those threats is the same: the pandemic is still rampant, there are issues in the education service, we have the worst health waiting lists in these islands by a mile, and, without a climate change plan, Northern Ireland is a laggard with no binding targets at all. That seesaw of instability and stop-start governance is the last decade and a half in microcosm, with each of the two lead parties replicating the same tactics and threats, and criticising each other for doing the same, with each particular episode draining away the confidence and belief of the people of Northern Ireland in power sharing.
I fear that, with this Bill, we have missed some of the opportunities to improve governance, cohesion and the sense of possibility that the institutions were based on. For all that the letter and spirit of the Good Friday agreement have been invoked in recent years, either for or against Brexit and the protocol, that spirit of power sharing and genuinely working the common ground in the interests of people in Northern Ireland through mutual endeavour are quite absent from today’s Assembly. In our amendments in Committee and today, the SDLP brought forward practical suggestions to try to improve the atmosphere and improve governance. We have been very clear—this was echoed by a number of witnesses in Committee—that no amount of rules and regulations will force the parties to share power properly unless they truly believe that it is the right thing to do, but it is appropriate that we should try to improve the mechanisms involved. The Good Friday agreement always allowed for that level of evolution, and that is something the SDLP has supported before—for example, in the introduction of opposition provisions.
It is a fact that the Good Friday agreement was negotiated by the widest possible range of political voices, that it was put to the people and that the people in the north and south of Ireland endorsed it. The St Andrews changes, which include a lot of the flaws, were not endorsed in that way. They were negotiated by, and for, the two large parties and imposed without recourse to the people of the island, and that shows. The flaws in the election of the First Ministers are illustrative of the rot and the culture of mistrust in the Assembly. There has been much discussion in recent months about the concept of parallel consent, when in fact the election of joint First Ministers, as was, is the centrepiece of parallel consent and the most real example of it in strand 1.
In the early years of the Assembly, the First Ministers were elected from the Floor of the Assembly by a majority of all present and both designations. That allowed for cross-party consensus building and coalition building, which have disappeared in the last decade and  a half. That was done to spare the blushes of the larger parties because they did not want to be seen to be endorsing each other in the voting Lobby, but that has had, and continues to have, a knock-on effect on the wider political discourse. We know that leadership in any organisation comes from the top, and it is the same in Northern Ireland. These changes, which we have tried to address through amendments, will allow each Assembly election to be reduced to a first-past-the-post race to become top dog, even though, as others have pointed out, one cannot even order paperclips without the say-so of the other. This will serve to suck all the oxygen out of the political discussion and allow every other issue to drain away.

Tan Dhesi: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that it is beneficial for the good people of Northern Ireland to have a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly rather than getting edicts from here in Westminster. Does she agree that it was even more destabilising for Northern Ireland when the UK Government, as part of the Brexit deal, signed a Northern Ireland protocol that they had no intention of honouring? Is that not even worse for the people of Northern Ireland?

Claire Hanna: I agree entirely. Among the many things that we discussed under the Good Friday agreement, the primacy of the rule of law and of trust are contained in that as well. They have gone out of the window in recent months, which is having a knock-on effect in Northern Ireland.
I regret that our amendments were not adopted, but the mechanisms that we tried to insert into the Bill were around that sense of joint purpose and common endeavour, as well as accountability. When the First Ministers were elected by the MLAs, they were accountable to the MLAs. The failures of the current process became very clear when Members of the Assembly tried to hold to account Ministers who had been responsible for terrible governance failures in the renewable heat incentive scheme. It became very clear that the First Minister did not feel that she was accountable to the Assembly, and indeed, due to those changes, she was not.
It is also worth saying that the mechanisms that we proposed would have been compatible with an overdue review of designation. I very much agree with the point raised by, among others, the Chair of the Northern Ireland Committee that, as currently operated, the designation structures for people opting to be nationalist, Unionist or other are locking in sectarianism. They were very well-intentioned; they were designed to manage a traditional conflict between two traditional communities, but Northern Ireland has evolved and it is appropriate that we should look to evolve those structures as well.
The Minister referred to the Bill being New Decade, New Approach, no more and no less. It is a missed opportunity, but it is worth saying that it includes some things that I do not remember from New Decade, New Approach, including the removal of key phrases and mechanisms from the ministerial code of conduct. It is still not clear who had problems with the language on transparency and accountability as it stood in the original agreement and in the 1998 Act, but I use that as an illustrative example that it is not a faithful transcription of the New Decade, New Approach all-party agreement and therefore other mechanisms could have been advanced.
Although we agree with the thrust of the Bill, we are beset and bedevilled by a culture of veto and stand-off, and this would have been an appropriate opportunity to try to fix some of those things. For example, to the best of my knowledge, the Assembly has not delivered a single piece of equality legislation. I listened to hon. Members speaking about why we could not pass equality legislation, in this case in the form of language legislation, because there is so much to do on health and education. There is no doubt about that, but those same parties have been running the show for a decade and a half, and in many cases they hold the specific ministerial briefs about which they speak. Every other region of these islands is able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Equality provisions can be advanced while meaningfully delivering for the people of Northern Ireland.

Stephen Farry: Does the hon. Lady agree that if a certain party has a huge issue with the UK Parliament legislating in relation to the language and culture package of New Decade, New Approach, it has the opportunity to expedite the package through the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Claire Hanna: I agree entirely, as the Assembly is supposed to be local power in local hands. The culture of telling people that sharing is losing is a big part of the problem that we have today. That opportunity is still on the table, and my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) tried in Committee to introduce such legislation through an amendment that faithfully transcribes what was agreed by all parties, including the Democratic Unionist party.
Sustainability and stability will not come from rules and regulations; they will come from people understanding and believing that power sharing is the right thing to  do, and not just doing it because the law makes them do it. It will come from London and Dublin operating together again as friends and equals on the basis of transparency and trust, and it will come when the powers of devolution are used meaningfully to change people’s lives and not just as a way of moving from actual conflict to a culture war, as we have had. There are opportunities to improve that governance, and we have not taken them today, but my hon. Friend and I will be ready to have that conversation.

Gregory Campbell: This Bill had its genesis in New Decade, New Approach, and we are here today to try to make progress. As its name implies, we are trying to build for the remainder of this decade.
We are less likely to repeat the mistakes of the past if we can learn from that past, and the problem is twofold. First, it is repeated ad nauseam in this House and elsewhere that peace broke out in Northern Ireland in 1998, but the reality and the lesson we should learn is that for the preceding four years the terrorists slowly and gradually learned that terrorism was not the way to proceed. In 1994, four years before the agreement was signed, the terrorists decided that the game was up and that terror was no longer how they would proceed. That was good and long overdue, but people should not misinterpret 1998 as the beginning of peace. The terrorists decided to depart from terrorism gradually and slowly in the preceding years.
Unfortunately, more mistakes were made in 1998. Agreement was necessary and required, and we had all strived for many years to achieve agreement, but in 1998 the terrorists were allowed to be at the table without giving up their guns—some of us said that should not be the case. I can well understand the reasons for their entering the process, but I disagree with them none the less.
We entered into a system that has plagued politics in Northern Ireland from then until now, in which there can be no move forward unless everyone buys into the process. We had the years up to St Andrews and beyond to try to inch people beyond only moving at the pace of the slowest learner in the room. That was the problem, and thankfully we made some progress at St Andrews. Hopefully we will now make further progress as a result of New Decade, New Approach, but how do we embed that in Northern Ireland’s society? How do we depart from the issues that have plagued us for so long when a single party can up sticks and leave, as Sinn Féin did, and bring down the whole system for three years?
We now have a prolonged period. There may be a difference of opinion on how long that period should be, but at least it should help to concentrate minds for longer than seven days whenever Sinn Féin engineers a crisis. The then Deputy First Minister was clearly unwell, and everyone could see the degree of his illness, and the ensuing crisis that had been engineered lasted for three years. Hopefully we have a bit more time and good will now. We have bought a bit of extra time with New Decade, New Approach, but unless there is good will we will still face the same problem.
Single parties must realise that, for the greater good, we have to try to move together with some form of consensus. No one is going to get everything they want, which is why many of us said about NDNA, “There are things in this that we don’t particularly like, but for the greater good we will buy into the process.” The Government should not take that and say, “We will implement part of NDNA and leave other parts of it on the shelf.” That cannot and will not work. We have to bring matters to a head, as we said we would. It is not a matter of bringing down the system, as has been inaccurately reported in the Chamber today. We are bringing matters to a head, not bringing them down, to try to force an election rather than to destroy the institutions.
My party will support the Bill with whatever reservations we have, and I hope that we can build a future in Northern Ireland that is better than our past.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Like the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone, we keep coming back to the phrases and mantras mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart): “We must support the Belfast agreement, provided it is our interpretation of the Belfast agreement.” The two-faced approach from some hon. Members, who say we must support the Belfast agreement and never change it while tabling amendments to change it, is not lost on anyone back home.
I do not often quote the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), but I agreed with her wholeheartedly when she said that she wishes to support the locked-in sectarianism of the Belfast agreement. Think of it, we are discussing measures that a Member of this Parliament—

Claire Hanna: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Paisley Jnr: No, I will not. The hon. Lady had a good opportunity to make a speech. It may not have been her finest moment, but she has made a speech and I think I am entitled to take that speech apart, which she has made very easy for me. She wishes to support the locked-in sectarianism of the Belfast agreement, and it is incredible that she is asking this House to do that. That follows closely on the heels of the previous Member for Foyle—

Claire Hanna: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If Members are referring to content, they should quote me accurately. I said that the current designation structures, as operated, were locking in sectarianism. Is it appropriate for Members to misquote other Members?

Rosie Winterton: Could the hon. Lady repeat that point of order? I could not hear it properly.

Claire Hanna: Is it in order, Madam Deputy Speaker, for Members to misquote other Members? I said in my speech that the current designation mechanisms, as operated, were locking in sectarianism. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has accused me of attempting to lock in sectarianism.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. It is important that Members do not misquote other Members; that is very important indeed. The hon. Lady has made her point. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman feels that he has misinterpreted her words, he will respond, or he may feel that the clarification that she has just given has put what she said on the record.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Of course, this is not the first time that Social Democratic and Labour party Members have opposed the Belfast agreement and called for changes when it suits them. The previous Member for Foyle talked about the “ugly scaffolding” that surrounded the Belfast agreement—

Colum Eastwood: Maybe the hon. Member will give way to me, will he?

Ian Paisley Jnr: Of course, the “ugly scaffolding”—

Colum Eastwood: No? Do you want to give way?

Ian Paisley Jnr: I will in a moment.

Colum Eastwood: Good man.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I am never frightened to give way, while others are, and the Member knows that, so he should not worry about that. I will give way in a moment. The SDLP Members are getting particularly ratty now, because some of the points that have been made are being put back to them—that they are supporting an inherently flawed agreement. Many in Northern Ireland want to get to normal, democratic politics. One reason why we have the problems that have been highlighted today and why we have the problems that necessitate the Bill is that we do not have fundamentally democratic institutions in operation in Northern Ireland. I would love to see those institutions come into place.
Some of the amendments that have been tabled are about keeping in place and reinforcing the sectarian nature of the agreements. For example, we are told that  the petition of concern is there to protect minorities, and that provided that that minority is a nationalist minority, that petition of concern should be retained, but whenever some people believe that at some point in future it may be a Unionist minority, the petition of concern better be done away with pretty quickly, because we would not want that Unionist minority on the island of Ireland having protections and rights. That is not lost on many people outside this House.
Does the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) still want to intervene?

Colum Eastwood: I would love to—if I can remember the hon. Member’s point. I thank him for giving way. On his point about the former Member for Foyle, of course, he negotiated the Good Friday agreement when the hon. Gentleman and his party were standing outside with placards, shouting and cheering. By the way, they were shouted down by the people of Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland, who voted massively in favour of the Good Friday agreement. Of course, the hon. Gentleman’s party has been implementing the Good Friday agreement ever since it did the thing at St Andrews. You talked about the petition of concern—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I did not talk about anything. Has the hon. Gentleman finished?

Colum Eastwood: indicated assent.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I think the point is not lost on anyone watching that the Member has lost.
Let me turn to some of the issues that have been raised. People have talked today about threats to the institutions—threats that they might be brought down by the Democratic Unionist party. Of course, when the Justice Minister made it clear on Radio Ulster that she did not find it comfortable being in the Northern Ireland Executive and might leave it, that was not characterised as a threat to the institution. It is amazing that when one does one thing, it is characterised in one way, but if anyone else from a different tradition indicates their concerns about the institutions, it is suddenly characterised as a threat to democracy and to the process, when it is no such thing. The fact of the matter is that the Unionist people of Northern Ireland have rights and expect their Unionist politicians to defend those rights, and we will defend their rights. No matter what the cost and no matter what the price, those rights will be defended, come what may.
The current hon. Member for Foyle made the point that the Justice Minister could not be someone from the nationalist tradition. I would make the point, which is not lost on anyone, that the last time there was a Unionist Justice Minister was in 1971—

Stephen Farry: What about Claire Sugden?

Ian Paisley Jnr: Unionists are not allowed—[Interruption.] Well, David Ford, I do not think he was—

Colum Eastwood: Claire Sugden is a Unionist.

Ian Paisley Jnr: She is an independent. There was no one brought from the main Unionist party into the Justice Department, because the nationalist parties would object to that and not allow it to take place. It is very clear to  all those who see that what suits one party at one time will only be used provided that it does not encourage or support the Unionist tradition. That is why there are many objections.
People from Northern Ireland will look on at this—I will use the phrase fiddling while Rome burns. Some people may think that more attractive than others do, but I certainly do not. Many people know that a torpedo has been fired at the Northern Ireland institutions and it is outside the control of the Unionist parties and nationalist parties operating in the Assembly, and that torpedo is, of course, the Northern Ireland protocol. Until and unless the Government in this place resolve themselves to do what they said in their Command Paper in July this year, that torpedo will eventually hole those institutions below the line. When that happens, no amount of hand-wringing in this place and no amount of declaring one’s dying loyalty to whatever interpretation of the Belfast agreement people feel they wish to support will salvage those institutions.
I urge the Government to move immediately—now—and to do what they should have done by invoking article 16 of the protocol and resolving that issue once and for all. Otherwise, we will continue to have the cherry-picking that we have seen in this place, with one party wanting the language provisions, another party wanting to address the issues to do with abortions and another party then wanting something else. That will go on in an infernal circle for all to see. I encourage the Government to move on that protocol, and to move immediately.

Brandon Lewis: With the leave of the House, I shall briefly sum up. I again thank all colleagues in the House. We have seen throughout today’s discussions, both on Report and on Third Reading, a good, wide range of subjects covered. To build on the point made by the Minister of State, some of those points were about the Bill, which relates to the New Decade, New Approach deal, and I want to touch on them.
As was welcomed when we started deliberations on the Bill, it is the first Bill relating to Northern Ireland that the House has had a chance to consider without operating under emergency processes for some time. As we have seen, we have had a chance to have a good, wide discussion about the issues in the Bill. That is a good thing and has allowed people the opportunity to air and talk about issues that go beyond what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach. As I said earlier, I look   forward to continuing those discussions and seeing whether we can find some agreement across all the parties in the Executive to move things forward together.
I say gently to those colleagues who have raised issues as things to be amended today—I make this point to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—that when we talk about making sure that we work through consensus and move things forward together in Northern Ireland, that means having all the parties come to an agreement, not just rushing into doing things today. It is right that we have these discussions.
On the package and questions raised by the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), and others, it is disappointing to see the Opposition, in a well-informed debate that has been good and well-mannered in large part, looking to play politics around these issues. Let us be clear that the cultural package will include a new office for identity and cultural expression, to promote cultural pluralism and inclusion across all identities and cultures, alongside commissioners to protect and enhance the Irish language and develop the language, arts and literature with the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition in Northern Ireland. We have already been making progress on those things. When the hon. Member for Pontypridd speaks at the Dispatch Box, she may want to make sure that she has done some research. To help her out, I suggest that she looks back to the written ministerial statement from 21 June, because our position is still as per that statement and we will still be seeking to deliver that, as we promised we would, if the Executive themselves cannot take it forward.

Alex Davies-Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Brandon Lewis: No—the hon. Lady spoke earlier.
We have already delivered £2 million-worth of a funding package announced earlier this year, including for Northern Ireland Screen’s Irish language broadcast fund and the Ulster-Scots broadcast fund. We will continue to deliver on that, stand by our word and make sure that the cultural package is delivered within the mandate, but this Bill relates to the New Decade, New Approach deal and I look forward to seeing its progress continue in the weeks and months ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Second Reading

Dominic Raab: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill makes good on our Government’s manifesto pledge to ensure that judicial review is not subject to abuse and to deliver more effective, more efficient justice for the citizens of our country. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland) for all of his work in preparing the Bill and for his outstanding tenure as Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary.
I first want to address the so-called Cart reviews. That is the means by which the High Court reviews decisions of the upper tribunal to refuse permission to appeal a first-tier tribunal decision.

Joanna Cherry: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Raab: May I make a bit of progress?
Let me take one immigration case by way of illustration. A claimant whose leave to remain was revoked because of his dishonesty challenged that decision in the High Court. He was granted permission to bring his judicial review despite exhausting the appeal process at the immigration tribunal. The challenge was eventually dismissed, but not before it was sent back to the upper tribunal. At that point, the judges, Messrs Lane and Ockleton, noted that
“it appears that permission was granted on grounds which had no merit, ought to have been withdrawn by their proponent, and do not seem to have been regarded as giving a reasonable prospect of success even in the granting of permission.”
That is just one illustration. To give a sense of scale, on average, there are 750 judicial reviews against the upper tribunal alone each year, the vast majority of which are immigration cases. The success rate is just 3.4%. For completeness as well as appeals on immigration, the upper tribunal also hears cases on administrative and regulatory matters—things such as social security tax and property cases.

Joanna Cherry: I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for giving way. I would like to intervene later on the specifics of this matter, but may I start by asking him this: the right to judicial review in Scotland is protected by article 19 of the Treaty of Union and it is a devolved matter under the Scotland Act 2016. His predecessor gave me a written assurance that the focus of this Bill would be on UK powers and procedures relevant only to the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Will he tell my why that promise has been broken?

Dominic Raab: It has not been broken, but I shall come on to address that when I deal with the devolution dimension in a little while.
Of course there must be accountability, but allowing such a large volume of flawed challenges just skews the system. Allowing a legal war of attrition—not just against the Government, but, as in this case, against the judiciary themselves—undermines the integrity of the two-tier  tribunal process, which was set up precisely to deal both fairly and efficiently with immigration cases. That wastes court time and taxpayers’ money, which should be focused on reviewing more serious and credible cases. The Supreme Court Justice Lord Brown foresaw that this very problem would arise in his judgment in the original Cart case back in 2011 and he said then that
“the rule of law is weakened, not strengthened, if a disproportionate part of the courts’ resources is devoted to finding a very occasional grain of wheat on a threshing floor full of chaff.”
Regrettably, he was proved right. It is also worth noting the more recent commentary by Lord Hope of Craighead, another of the presiding judges in the Cart case, who said in the other place earlier this year that these types of reviews have not worked and that it is time “to end them.”

Debbie Abrahams: I am very grateful to the Justice Secretary for giving way.
Over the past few years, the law has been the only way that any justice has been allowed for social security claimants. Three different judicial reviews were upheld and they said that what the social security Secretary had undertaken was unlawful—both on universal credit for disabled people and for single mothers. Which of these judicial reviews would have been allowed under this Bill?

Dominic Raab: Of course I cannot second guess the judicial decisions made in individual cases, but what I can say is that of course we want to protect the integrity not just of judicial accountability, but of the tribunal process, which we have established precisely to deal with those cases as well as others that I have discussed. The Bill will address the problem in a sensible and proportionate way, preventing Cart appeals except in the most exceptional circumstances, such as the upper tribunal deciding a type of case outside its jurisdiction, in bad faith or with some fundamental procedural error, such as not hearing one side of the case, which would clearly be wrong. Our approach will ensure that the 180 judge-days spent on Cart reviews, every year, are no longer wasted. In that way, taxpayers’ money is saved and the immigration system can function more effectively.
I would be interested to know whether Labour will support us in this matter. I have done my homework—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is laughing, but if Labour plans to vote against this Bill on the basis of Cart, I would point out that the shadow Justice Secretary personally proposed a much broader so-called ouster clause back in 2003 in Labour’s Asylum and Immigration Bill—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman said that he was young and naive. I am not sure what that makes him now. Forgive me if I am reminding him of a stressful moment in his career, but it was the Asylum and Immigration Bill back in 2003. It did not have any of the exceptions and it was not as constrained as the Bill before the House today. He did not just support the measure; he proposed the measure. He was a Minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I am not sure whether he has forgotten about that, but I am afraid that the Opposition have zero credibility in opposing a more targeted measure that they proposed before.
The Bill will remove Cart for the whole of the UK, but only in respect of reserved matters. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that we must have consistency  in routes of appeal to preserve a coherent and efficient immigration policy and indeed the integrity of the UK’s borders.

Joanna Cherry: The Lord Chancellor will be aware—I am sure that this will be covered in other speeches—that the evidential basis for this law change in England has been questioned, but the Law Society of Scotland has said that there is no evidence of any such problem in Scotland. On the contrary, there is good recent evidence of a Cart—or Eba judicial review as we call them in Scotland—in which the first tier tribunal and the upper tier judge misunderstood the petitioners’ evidence, and the Appeal Court intervened to reduce the upper tribunal’s decision, refusing it permission to appeal. Does he accept that there is absolutely no evidential basis, north or south of the border, for the need for these kind of procedures to be withdrawn, and can he tell me why he is forcing a restriction on the Scottish legal system for which there is no evidential basis?

Dominic Raab: In fairness, I think have presented the evidential basis: 750 cases each year and barely a 3% success rate. Of course, the integrity of the tribunal needs to be protected. There are safeguards and exceptions. The Bill is not nearly as broad as the Bill tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham back in 2003. This is the right way for the House to proceed.

Joanna Cherry: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Dominic Raab: I will make some progress; I have given way to the hon. and learned Lady twice.
The Bill will reform quashing orders so that we can strike a better balance between the essential judicial accountability over the Executive and the ability of an elected Government to deliver their mandate in a lawful but orderly way. Let me give one example: the case of Her Majesty’s Treasury v. Ahmed back in 2010. In that case, the then Government acted on best information, including intelligence, and froze the funds of three brothers suspected of being al-Qaeda terrorists. They did so under the auspices of two Orders in Council, which were made in 2006 under the powers of the United Nations Act 1946. The Supreme Court considered whether the orders were ultra vires of that Act and therefore invalid.
The 1946 Act gave the Government the power to give effect to UN Security Council resolutions on threats posed by international terrorism. However, the Supreme Court decided that the orders went beyond what was necessary and expedient for implementing the relevant resolution, because the orders provided that a person’s assets could be frozen on the basis of a “reasonable suspicion” of involvement in terrorism, rather than a higher standard of evidential proof that the court deemed that the law required. The court quashed the orders immediately, irrespective of the ability of the Government to reassess or revise the order, because it concluded that it did not have the power to suspend the effect of the quashing order. That required Parliament to rush through new legislation to protect the public by preventing suspected terrorists from accessing those funds, because Ministers no longer had the powers that they believed they could exercise under the relevant legislation.
This Bill simply remedies that measure of inflexibility by giving the judiciary the power to issue a suspended—or, indeed, a prospective—quashing order, allowing the Government a reasonable period of time to review the  orders and/or the legislation itself. If that had been available in the Ahmed case, it could have prevented considerable disruption and potential risk, while safe- guarding the judiciary’s vital scrutiny of the Executive in such an important area of national security.

Bill Cash: The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, as originally passed, included provision for the courts to be able to quash Acts of Parliament. That is rather a serious matter, to say the very least. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is very unwise—particularly having regard to the Factortame case, when we voluntarily agreed that we would allow the courts to do that—and that now that we are out, we certainly would not want that to happen again?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. I have not heard the Factortame case cited in this House for some time—to the relief of some.
Of course, there are many other contexts beyond counter-terrorism—from infrastructure projects to health and safety regulation—where the use of a suspended or prospective quashing order would lead to a better outcome, allowing both essential judicial accountability and good governance at the same time; those two aspects can and should go hand in hand. Dare I say it, these reforms may have the welcome effect of making our system just a little less adversarial by giving the Government and this House the opportunity to respond swiftly but in a considered manner, rather than effectively being tripped up—sometimes at great cost to the taxpayer and at other times at potential risk to the public.

Bob Neill: Perhaps the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor could help me on two matters. When these matters of suspended quashing orders are being worked out, will he ensure that no litigant who has succeeded and has suffered tangible loss is left without an effective remedy? That will be important, outwith any other considerations that might very properly be taken into account. I also gently say to him that he has clearly been absent from justice debates for a little while—and we welcome him back—or he would surely have known that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) never misses an opportunity to raise Factortame when we talk about topics of this kind; he has managed to do so in this debate as well.

Dominic Raab: I can give my hon. Friend, who chairs the Justice Committee, the reassurance that he is looking for. If he looks at clause 1(8)(c) and (d), he will see that
“the interests or expectations of persons who would benefit from the quashing of the impugned act”
and those
“who have relied on the impugned act”
are material considerations for the court to consider.

Tan Dhesi: What would the Secretary of State say to victims of rape, some of whom have been waiting up to four years to get justice, when they rightly ask why the Government are prioritising judicial review reforms in the midst of a pandemic, rather than dealing with those abhorrent crimes?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair challenge. However, he should ignore the pleadings from those on his Front Bench and support this Bill,  because, overall, as well as dealing with judicial review, with the reform agenda that we are putting through the criminal courts we will free up a substantial number of Crown court days a year—I think it is 400. That will mean, on top of the other efforts such as the Nightingale courts, the super-court in Manchester and the virtual courtrooms, that we will be able to free up further court time and space. He raised a very good point but it is a reason—an argument—for supporting the Bill.
I turn next to courts and tribunals, which, as the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) fairly says, have been severely impacted by the covid-19 pandemic. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the judges, coroners, clerks, barristers and solicitors who have worked so hard to keep the wheels of justice turning. We should take pride in the fact that, looking right around the world, our jurisdiction was the first to restart jury trials after the pandemic began.
On the point that the hon. Gentleman made, we also recognise the backlog created by the pandemic. Let me reassure him, and the House, that we are taking every measure and straining every sinew to bear down on it as swiftly as possible. As well as the super-court and the Nightingale courts, we have the new technology that will help us to reduce the backlog and pioneer other innovative procedural reforms. We are using technology to deliver better services for victims, and indeed for users and citizens, allowing vulnerable victims to pre-record their cross-examination evidence rather than have to go through the distress of giving it in court in front of an assailant. Likewise, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, once it is commenced, will mean that all complainants of domestic abuse can give evidence during a trial from outside the court through a virtual link.
This is not confined to the criminal courts. In the civil courts, our reforms to probate mean that grieving relatives can make their applications from their own home, while the digitisation of the divorce service has reduced the time for users to complete the process by almost three months compared with the paper track. Now, as a result of this Bill, we will ensure that we are using technology to build the system around the people who actually use it, who invariably want to see justice done more swiftly and more conveniently for them, given their busy schedules, whether in work or life.
The Bill makes provision for a completely new online procedure rules committee for civil and family proceedings and tribunals. That committee will create new rules for online services consistent across all the jurisdictions. Let me give just one illustration of how the average citizen will benefit. For a self-employed person, say a plumber or a carpenter, chasing an unpaid invoice, the rules will enable these online services to be straightforward and easy to follow, dispensing swifter justice more convenient for the average working citizen as a user of the justice system. I think we should be pushing and pressing in that direction. The Bill will transfer responsibility for employment tribunal rules from the Business Secretary to the tribunal procedure committee. It will also make the committee responsible for rules in the employment appeals tribunal. While this is a rather technical change, transferring these powers to an independent judge-led committee will align the employment tribunals more closely with the wider tribunal system and promote broader consistency and efficiency.
In the criminal courts, the Bill will introduce measures that use new technology to streamline procedures to strip out unnecessary in-person hearings and create more efficient processes for allocation of cases in the Crown court and the magistrates court. That will enable swifter resolution of low-level offences such as travelling on a train without a ticket or fishing without a licensed rod without the need for the time and expense of attending court, allowing people to do it online instead, delivering a common-sense approach to our justice system.
The Bill will streamline procedures in the use of remote hearings in coroners’ courts, which will speed up and simplify the inquest process and reduce the distress for bereaved families.

Vicky Foxcroft: When my constituents Andy and Amanda lost their daughter Colette, who was in the care of the state, they had an awful experience with the coroner service and had to crowdfund money for their legal representation. They just wanted lessons to be learned after their daughter’s awful death. Surely they should have the right to the same legal representation as the state, and providing publicly funded legal representation would improve this. What would the Minister say to that?

Dominic Raab: We have addressed that issue in response to the report that the Select Committee put out. Our position has not changed. What I would say to the hon. Lady is that I am mindful of the ordeal her constituents went through. One reason we are taking forward these procedures is to reduce that anguish and stress and to ensure that the coroners’ courts in the process deliver a better outcome for the bereaved and others relying on that service.

Bob Seely: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is making this speech, and we support so much of the Bill. On principle, does he accept that DNA sampling for people buried at sea would speed things up and save time for police and coroners when body parts wash up anywhere on the UK coastline, because they could quickly identify where those body parts come from?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend has raised that point with me privately, and he has now raised it on the Floor of the House. I am committed to looking at it and getting back to him. I understand the point, which he has raised in his usual tenacious but clear way.
Finally, the Bill will pave the way for a new state-of-the-art combined courthouse in the City of London. That court will provide an additional 10 courtrooms, predominantly to hear economic crime cases, including white-collar crime, such as fraud, and high-value business and property cases. That will be a real boost to the capital and to our vision of global Britain as a centre for investment, dispute resolution and doing business with integrity around the world. Court users will benefit directly by having access to more modern facilities, including lifts, wide corridors and a range of other measures, making it more accessible for the disabled. The City courtroom will have enhanced custodial facilities, increasing its ability to hear more cases with the most serious type of defendants.

Marsha de Cordova: It is great that the Justice Secretary is talking about ensuring that this new court building will be fully accessible and inclusive, but going back to the point about digitisation, how will he ensure that everybody who needs online access will be able to access things online and that no communities will be left behind as a result of this Bill?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Lady is right to raise that concern. All of this work to modernise court and tribunal proceedings, which is necessary in its own right, will help to bring down the backlog of cases created by the pandemic. Physical hearings will always be available for those who need and want to use them, so that those who are uncomfortable or cannot access the digital and online applications will not be prejudiced. I hope that gives her the reassurance she needs to support this Bill on Second Reading.

Andy Carter: I agree with the comments the Secretary of State made earlier about the work of the judiciary in bringing down delays. In particular, I put on record my thanks to the magistrates who work in our courts around the UK. Does he agree that one route we could choose to reduce the number of delays in magistrates courts is to increase the sentencing powers for magistrates? Perhaps he can say a little more on that point.

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend for the work he and the magistrates have done. They hear 85% of criminal cases. The backlog in the magistrates court is already coming down. We thank the magistrates for the incredible work they are doing. He has lobbied me on this point, and in the context of the backlog, it is something I am looking at very carefully.
In sum, the Bill will reform the immigration appeals system, protecting it from litigation attrition. It gives judges greater flexibility in judicial review to hold the Executive to account without unnecessary disruption to the essential business of Government. Above all, the Bill will drive innovation across our courts to deliver a better service for the average citizen in this country. I commend the Bill to the House.

David Lammy: I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) on his promotion to the office of Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. I look forward very much to working with him and going toe to toe on the important issues of the day. I put on record how grateful I was for the manner in which his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), pursued his role. We were able to have very good Privy Council discussions on important issues relating to the justice system during the pandemic. I wanted to put that on record.
Hon. Members may have seen that I am joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who returns to the Front Bench to assist the Opposition in all matters legal. I pay tribute to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who does so much to advance the case for legal aid.
To govern is to choose, and all Governments must choose what they will prioritise. No Government can do everything at once—not even this Government—and  the Bill could not be a clearer indication of what they have chosen to prioritise and what they choose to ignore. As we come to debate the Bill, the justice system is at breaking point with more than 60,000 Crown court cases delayed, victims dropping out of the process due to waiting years for their case to go to court, and women up and down the country rapidly losing confidence in the criminal justice system. Yet here we are debating judicial review. Government Members might say that this is a manifesto commitment. Then again, so was not clobbering ordinary people with tax rises. What the Bill says about the Government’s priorities is that they are more concerned with constitutional vandalism than with fixing the mess they have made of the justice system.

Joanna Cherry: On constitutional vandalism, the Law Society of Scotland has said that the abolition of Cart judicial reviews in Scotland by clause 2 of the Bill
“has the effect not of modifying a rule which is special to a reserved matter, but rather of creating such a rule, as it means that, in future, there will be a difference in the amenability of reserved and devolved tribunals to judicial review.”
Does the right hon. Member agree that, if it is right about that, there should be a legislative consent motion for the Bill?

David Lammy: According to the devolved settlement, that must be the case. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister will address that.
“Judicial review is a cornerstone of British democracy. It empowers everyday people to challenge decisions made by public bodies. Whether it be central government or local authorities, rule makers are held accountable by ordinary people. This is a small, but important, check on the balance of powers in our democracy.”
Those are not my words but the words of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who I see in his place. He has described the reforms as “un-Conservative” and
“an obvious attempt to avoid accountability.”
I will let that hang in the air of the House of Commons.
There is no legitimate need to meddle with judicial review, least of all when there are so many other pressing issues to deal with. What message does it send to the victims of serious crime in a time of crisis that the Government’s first objective is to weaken quashing orders —one of the tools available when a court finds that a public body or the Government have acted unlawfully?

Kim Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the collapse of the Hillsborough trial identified flaws in our legal system and caused untold trauma to the families of the 97? Will he join me in urging the Government to bring the Bill back with amendments to include automatic non-means-tested public funding for bereaved families when public functions are involved?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend rightly raises the Hillsborough families, and she knows that, just like the Grenfell families, they have relied on judicial review. She raises that in relation to legal aid and will know that I have made such a commitment at the Dispatch Box. We will wait to see whether the Government will meet us with that important pledge on behalf of any individual facing tragedies of that sort.
The Bill seeks to make profound changes to how quashing orders work and, crucially, to what redress victims of unlawful decisions can receive from the courts.  Clause 1 creates new powers for courts to remove or limit the retrospective effect of a quashing order. It will also create a presumption that a judge issuing a quashing order should make it suspended or prospective only. The effect of that would be for courts to have less power to provide redress or to compensate those affected by past uses of the unlawful decision.
On the face of it, that might seem to be quite a small change to judicial review, but the effects would be profound and chilling. The Government’s own consultation paper even conceded that a prospective-only quashing order would
“impose injustice and unfairness on those who have reasonably relied on its validity in the past.”
Let us look at how that would work in practice. When the Supreme Court quashed the employment tribunal fees in 2017, the effect of its declaration was that fees were identified as being unlawful from the start. Thousands of workers unlawfully denied access to justice therefore had their tribunal fees refunded. Had a prospective-only order been made, they would have been left out of pocket, despite the fees being ruled unlawful. How can that possibly be right? What would be the point of bringing a claim for judicial review, if people knew before they even started that they would be no better off? What is the purpose of judicial review if it cannot hold public bodies rightfully to account?
That is just the tip of the iceberg. As more people are left without the redress they deserve, many more will be put off bringing their own claim, even if those were perfectly valid. As a result, unlawful decisions made by the Government—by any Government, of any colour or stripe—or a public body will go unchallenged. Perhaps, however, that is what the Government want, and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden certainly seems to think so, when he argues that the Bill is simply a way for them to dodge being held accountable. We all know that the ability of members of the public to challenge public bodies is vital to maintain a country built on good governance.

Joanna Cherry: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. Is the reason for the attack on judicial review that this Government have had a bloody nose repeatedly in the courts—on employment tribunal fees, asylum issues and benefits, and in the Prorogation case—and they do not like to be held to account?

David Lammy: The hon. and learned Lady’s point has so much merit. No Governments enjoy judicial review, but the point when in government is to be bigger than that. I say to the Secretary of State that this is his opportunity to be big.

Kieran Mullan: Is the right hon. Gentleman familiar with and has he reflected on the words of a former Labour Home Secretary, who criticised
“unaccountable and unelected judges usurping the role of parliament, setting the wishes of the people at naught and pursuing a liberal politically correct agenda of their own”?
How have those words informed his remarks today?

David Lammy: I have not reflected on that statement very much.
I was reminded recently of the importance of judicial review by the infamous “Judge over your shoulder” leaflet, which has been published since 1987 to remind civil servants of the importance of sound decision making. The leaflet advises civil servants of the importance of good governance and of making decisions effectively and fairly to avoid those decisions being found unlawful. It recognises that administrative law and, in this case, judicial review played an important part in securing good administration by providing a powerful method of ensuring that the improper exercise of power can be checked.
Frankly, that is why having effective judicial remedies is so important to maintain good governance. The threat of judicial review is a powerful tool to encourage decision makers to make decisions well and fairly. If the power of quashing orders were to be neutered in the way clause 1 seeks, not only would that leave victims of unlawful decisions without the remedy they deserve, but it would reduce the motivation for public bodies to take care when making decisions. I agree with the Law Society of England and Wales when it says that that would have a truly chilling effect on justice in this country and we must question why the Government are even considering the changes in clause 1. Those changes go far beyond what was recommended by the Government’s own independent review of administrative law. The review made no recommendation that quashing orders should be prospective only. It specifically recommended against that type of presumption.

Wera Hobhouse: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sign of a mature democracy is that it protects the marginalised and vulnerable? Government Members completely misunderstand that point.

David Lammy: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That ought to be a principle across the House, not a party political issue.
To return to the review of administrative law that the Government set up, in their consultation response, the Government acknowledge that presumptions were not recommended by the review panel, and they were generally met with scepticism from respondents to the consultation. Indeed, it is not even certain whether prospective-only remedies would withstand a challenge before the European Court of Human Rights for failure to provide an effective remedy. Given the Government’s own panel of experts, and the sector, are opposed to that change, and given the harmful effect that it would have on victims of unlawful decisions, as well as on governmental decision making, we must ask why the Government are keen to make this change. Is it really, as they suggest, to provide courts with greater flexibility, or is it simply to insulate the Government from being held to account, and to weaken the power of claimants to seek compensation?
Clause 2 seeks to abolish Cart-type judicial reviews. For Members who may not be familiar with what those are, Cart judicial reviews allow individuals to ask the High Court to review decisions made by the upper tribunal to refuse a right of appeal. The vast majority of Cart reviews are sought by those who find themselves in horrendously desperate situations and they invoke some of our most fundamental human rights, including in some cases the difference between life and death. During the review of administrative law that the Government  set up and the consultation stage, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association provided the panel with 57 case studies of when Cart judicial review has been used to put right an incorrect decision made by the upper tribunal. Those case studies included parents’ applications to be reunited with their children, a child’s application to remain in the UK to receive lifesaving treatment, the asylum claim of a victim of human trafficking and female genital mutilation, and many other deportation and asylum decisions where, if deported, individuals faced persecution or their lives would be at risk.

David Davis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and I am pleased I have provided half his speech for him. I have an important point in support of his argument. Much of the Government’s argument on Cart appears to be that there are very few successful cases. First, I think they got that wrong—they thought it was less than 1%, but it is probably 6%. Secondly, the point the right hon. Gentleman is making is that, when they get it wrong, the consequences for the individual are dramatically bad. We must always think that through. When dealing with law, we must protect the weakest from the worst consequences.

David Lammy: The right hon. Gentleman makes his point very well. He is absolutely right. In each of the cases that I mentioned, judicial review was able to correct a wrong decision by the upper tribunal and enable fundamental injustices to be prevented, as he indicates. If the Government were successful in abolishing Cart, that crucial safeguard would be lost. That would not affect anyone in this Chamber, but it would affect very vulnerable people. Again, one must ask why the Government are attempting to make this change, and why they are using legislative time now to do it.
When the panel that the Government set up to look at these issues first recommended abolishing Cart judicial reviews, it did so on the basis that only 0.22% of them were successful and that public money could be better spent elsewhere. We know now that that figure was based on wholly inaccurate data. Even the Government now accept that the success rate is likely to be at least 15 times as high as previously thought. It is indefensible for the Government to base decisions that could make the difference between life and death on evidence that is so hopelessly flawed.

Laura Farris: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about Cart judicial reviews, but can he explain why Lord Hope, the retired Supreme Court Justice who sat in the Cart case at the Supreme Court, spoke in the House of Lords on 22 March in favour of abolishing Cart-type judicial reviews? He said:
“We set the bar as high as we could when we were defining the test that should be applied, but experience has shown that our decision has not worked”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 2021; Vol. 811, c. 710.]

David Lammy: That is one reflection among many who sit on the other side of the debate, including those who have looked into this matter in great detail.
Why are the Government still pushing ahead with this reform? If we accept the Secretary of State’s reasoning, it comes down to cost and
“a disproportionate use of valuable judicial resource”.
In reality, however, the cost of Cart reviews is no more than £400,000 a year. That is a drop in the ocean compared with the Ministry of Justice’s overall budget. It is less than the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport spent on its art collection last year. Put another way, the Government Legal Department’s total administrative costs for the last year were £226.7 million, more than 500 times the upper estimate for yearly Cart judicial review costs.
As with clause 1, there could be another, murkier reason that the Government are so keen to abolish Cart judicial reviews. In its press release, the Ministry of Justice said that
“it is expected that the legal text that removes the Cart judgment will serve as a framework that can be replicated in other legislation.”
With those words, the Government let their mask slip. If that is indeed their intention—I look forward to the Lord Chancellor confirming that it is not—that would allow them to insulate whole sections of Government decision making from challenge by members of the public. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would agree that that would be a truly chilling development. Governments have to be challenged. Governments suffer defeats in the courts. Why would we start to oust Government decisions in other areas, beyond this small but important area of immigration law?
Beyond judicial review, there are several provisions dealing with a shift towards greater use of online procedures and technology. While Labour supports measures that would make the justice system more efficient, we must ensure that no one is left behind and that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent serious injustices. As the Bill currently stands, there is only a vague duty for the Lord Chancellor to provide digital support
“for those who require it”.
Labour feels that a specific commitment to assist digitally excluded individuals would offer better protection. While the creation of an online procedure rule committee is a positive step, the Bill currently puts too much power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. As it stands, the Lord Chancellor could amend, repeal or revoke any law he feels necessary to create the online procedure rules, and he would only have to consult the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals before making amendments to them.
The last area I want to address is the coroners court. As with provisions on criminal procedure, any efforts to reduce “unnecessary procedures” or allow for greater online participation must be accompanied with robust protections for those who could be excluded. More fundamentally, there is nothing in the Bill to address the inequality in the inquest system that sees bereaved families denied the legal aid that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) mentioned earlier, while the state has the benefit of the finest Government lawyers that taxpayers’ money can buy.

Yasmin Qureshi: Does my right hon. Friend agree that hospital authorities can hire Queen’s Counsel and spend millions of pounds on defending themselves, yet lone individuals cannot even get legal aid following the death of their immediate family? How disgusting is that?

David Lammy: It goes to the fundamental principle in our justice system of trying to have equality of arms. That is why the Bill is of so much concern.

Vicky Foxcroft: Just to reiterate the point about Colette, Andy and Amanda, and the pain they are going through after losing their daughter, they then have to crowdfund money to try to make sure that lessons are learnt. We must ensure we have a legal aid system in place that protects them. On the Labour Benches, I believe the shadow Secretary of State will be saying just that.

David Lammy: My hon. Friend’s championing of these issues is so important. The cupboard has been stripped bare and a real crisis is emerging, with vast legal aid deserts across the country. You cannot level up the country if people cannot get access to advice. That is the point and she is right to make it.
The Secretary of State made much of my youthful endeavours at the Dispatch Box 17 years ago. I said to him from a sedentary position that, on reflection, I was young and naïve. I say very gently to the Secretary of State that he is a younger man than I am. He needs to reflect on that. I did table an ouster clause to the asylum Bill at that time, but I listened, reflected and removed it before it could be enacted. The question today is this: will he do the same? Will he be the big man we know he is capable of being and remove this clause from the Bill, as he is being encouraged to do by such a senior colleague as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden?
The Bill is unnecessary and unwanted at a time of crisis in the justice system: it robs citizens of effective remedies when they have been wronged by the state; it would leave some of the most vulnerable people in society without a last defence against unlawful Government action; and it could act as a prelude to a wider assault on the rights and protections of individuals. I ask the Lord Chancellor, when the Government should be tackling the backlogs in the Crown courts, the magistrates and the employment tribunals, when they should be trying to repair their appalling record on prosecutions and convictions for rape and serious sexual assault, when they should be fixing the staffing crisis in prisons and probation, why have they chosen to protect themselves? Labour will be voting against the Bill today. I ask Members on both sides of the House to do the same.

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure to participate in the debate and to follow the two Front Benchers. I welcome the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State to the Treasury Bench, and thank him for the very generous and accurate tribute he paid to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), whose conduct in office was of the very highest. I also welcome the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) to the Opposition Front Bench. He is a great loss to the Justice Committee, but very much the Opposition Front Bench’s gain. I look forward to seeing him in his reincarnated capacity. This is proof, I am glad to see, that the Labour party believes in recycling, and doing it in a good way, in this instance. If it is any help, I was recycled by David Cameron once—it happens to all the best, I promise. I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman there.
This is an important Bill and, in fairness, a measured and tightly focused one. One might not have thought that from some of the things we have heard, but that is   the reality. Again, that is in no little measure due to the focus of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon, the principal author of the Bill. I welcome the fact that he did that, and the fact that the Lord Chancellor has adopted the same approach to the Bill.
There were a great deal of noises off around what might or might not happen on judicial review, and I am glad that the course was sensibly adopted of having  an independent review panel, chaired by an eminent Queen’s Counsel, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who is a distinguished Member of the other House and who, as I think everyone conceded, had approached his duties as a Justice Minister with exemplary fairness and impartiality, was respected by both sides, and had many years of practice in the field. He led a panel of experts who were also distinguished in the field, and they produced a measured report, for which the whole House should thank them.
That report was a great public service, and it is right that the Government have essentially built on the recommendations that the panel made, and the fact that the panel did not regard the judicial review as a major problem, but suggested sensible ways forward, is not something to be held against them. That seems to me exactly what one can expect if people follow the evidence, which is precisely what the panel did and what the Bill also does.
It is important to recognise that judicial review is an important factor in our constitutional arrangements. When I started as a law student in the mid-’70s, judicial review in its modern concept was in its very early stages of development. The late and lamented Professor de Smith was still alive and had produced the first of his two textbooks, but the subject was still largely taught in terms of the old prerogative writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari.
A lot has have moved on from then, and we have developed a much more sophisticated and wide-ranging corpus of administrative law. That is not of itself a bad thing, because it reflects the reality that, as I think the late Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone once observed, in the post-war years we have grown a regulatory state. Therefore, the actions of the state and of public bodies—state agencies, local authorities, hospital boards and a raft of others—impinge on many areas of citizens’ lives. That is not necessarily a criticism, but there are greater interactions between the state and its various agencies and the lives of its citizens.
There will be impacts there, and by the nature of the human condition, errors will be made by decision makers. It is perfectly reasonable that we have seen that, but, as has been observed, there has been an exponential growth—I think that was the phrase used—in judicial review. That is worth bearing in mind, because it has sometimes come at the cost of complexity in administrative law.
Lord Justice Haddon-Cave delivered a very useful lecture, the Gresham lecture, in June this year, which reflects wisely on the balances there: the fact that the growth of judicial review is not of itself a bad thing if it gives remedies to those who are wronged, versus the fact that in some areas of the law—the concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness and lawfulness being one—that has led to a degree of complexity. As Professor Richard Ekins of the University of Oxford has observed, that in turn can, in the fields of lawfulness, voidability  of decisions and so on, lead to uncertainty. In so far as, according to the Bingham test of the rule of law, we want to see clarity and accessibility of law, we also want wherever possible to see certainty. Nothing can be an absolute in this world, but that is a reasonable objective, and I think the Bill seeks to strike a balance.
What the Bill is not, in fairness, is an assault on judicial review. It is unfair to characterise it as such in every respect; I would not support the Bill if it were, nor do I think that any Conservative would. The truth is that judicial review—the ability of the individual to seek redress against the actions of the state or its agents—is fundamental to the English concept of liberties. In his role as an author, the Secretary of State wrote about these matters before he came to the House, so he recognises that point, as do I and as does the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy).
Judicial review—I say this to the wider public as well as to colleagues—is in the DNA not just of our British constitutional arrangements, but of the Conservative party. The ability to challenge the actions of the state and its agents when they get it wrong is fundamental to our concept of limited government. Supporting judicial review is an entirely Conservative thing for the Government to do and, dare I say it, an entirely British thing, across all the jurisdictions.

Joanna Cherry: As usual, the hon. Member is making a very learned and well-informed speech, but I want to challenge his assertion that the Bill is in line with Bingham rule-of-law principles. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has produced a detailed briefing on the Bill, which says that clauses 1 and 2 are not in keeping with the Bingham principles on the rule of law and should be removed from the Bill. What is the hon. Member’s comment on that?

Bob Neill: I have great respect for the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, but I think that it is wrong—it is as simple as that. I have come to the view, as I think the independent panel did, that the two clauses are not in conflict with the rule of law. That is precisely the sort of area in which there can be legitimate debate. I have worked with the Bingham Centre on many occasions, as the hon. and learned Lady knows, but I do not think that its conclusion is justified on the evidence. I think that that point is borne out by referring to the conclusions of the panel in relation to clauses 1 and 2, which I will come to in just a moment.
We all believe in the importance of judicial review. It is regrettable if any side in political debate sees tension between Parliament and the courts, or between the Executive and the courts, as a bad thing. There is always an element of tension in any constitutional relationship. Sometimes a decision may not go in our favour when we are councillors, members of health authorities or Ministers —it happened to me when I was a Minister. We may not like it, but equally we have to respect the decision. I do not see anything in the Bill that changes that fundamental point at all.
I will address the judicial review aspects of the Bill first, although I do not want to forget the other aspects. What we are dealing with is two very limited and specific proposals; that is a dangerous phrase to use under certain circumstances, but I think it works quite  well in this regard. In relation to Cart reviews, I must say—with respect to those who seek to uphold Cart—that I understand the point that in a tiny number of instances there might be success, but overwhelmingly they have not proved successful.
I commend to the House the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), who quoted Lord Hope. Of course there are others who argue to the contrary, but with all respect, I think that the views of a senior Law Lord who sat on the case in the Supreme Court and has said “We got it wrong” might carry just a little more weight than those of some other commentators. Certainly the conclusion of Lord Faulks’s panel was
“that the continued expenditure of judicial resources on considering applications for a Cart JR cannot be defended, and that the practice of making and considering such applications should be discontinued”,
so the Government have acted in line with their independent review and in line with the evidence.
I will make an additional point, which has already been posited, but which is important. Many who practise law would say that in truth there is an inherent illogicality in giving one particular class of appeal, as opposed to others, a third bite of the cherry on the merits, when a decision on the merits both of fact and of law has already been taken by the Upper Tribunal, a tribunal of equivalent status and standards to the High Court. That is not an appeal to a superior tribunal; it undercuts the jurisdiction of an equivalent court. With respect, there is no logic to that at all, so it seems to me that it cannot be said that there is anything objectionable in a modest amendment that relates to removing Cart litigation.
In relation to joint enterprise manslaughter, as hon. Members will recall, the Supreme Court used a phrase about the Court of Appeal taking “a wrong turn”. I think that this is an instance in which we can say—and Parliament is entitled to say, with respect—that the Supreme Court in Cart took a wrong turn, and that we are entitled as a matter of public policy, as is conceded to be Parliament’s prerogative in these matters, to reverse it in this limited measure.
May I also deal with the issue in relation to quashing orders? It does not seem to me that it can be objectionable to increase the suite of remedies available to the courts. There can be difficulty when quashing arises, and I do not say that this is a complete solution to it—I shall return to that in a moment—but I think it is worth quoting, in full, the recommendation of the independent panel:
“Accordingly, we recommend that section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 be amended to make it clear that the courts have the power to make suspended quashing orders in appropriate cases. This could be done through the insertion into section 31 of a new subsection (4A), which would read, ‘On an application for judicial review the High Court may suspend any quashing order that it makes, and provide that the order will not take effect if certain conditions specified by the High Court are satisfied within a certain time period.’”
That, broadly, is the scheme which the relevant provisions in the Act follow. They follow the recommendation of the independent review, and I therefore do not think that there are any significant grounds for criticism in that regard.
The one question that I would raise about this—and I posed it in my intervention earlier—relates to ensuring that when we consider the way in which the statutory  presumption which underpins this is set out and is then put into force in practice, we do not allow the individual litigant who has suffered tangible loss as a consequence of an impugned decision to be left without a genuine and meaningful remedy. A future declaration of illegality will not of itself recompense a person who has lost a business, lost an opportunity or lost employment, or something of that kind. Provided that this is applied in a way that ensures that that person does not lose out, I do not think that there is anything objectionable here.
There will be some who are parties to litigation and wish to see a change of policy rather than the question of having suffered individual loss, but I should have thought in those cases, the suspended and future quashing orders are perfectly legitimate and proportionate. It is the need to deal with the individual who has lost out against the state that I think we need to safeguard, and I hope the Minister will confirm that that will be done. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for having done so in response to my intervention. That, I think, is the key test.
Another point might be worth bearing in mind. Again, I refer to the helpful paper published by Professor Ekins this morning. This is a path that the Government are not going down, but I should like to know whether there will be some scope for the deferring rather than the suspending of a quashing order. There are circumstances in which that might enable remedies to be applied without some of the difficulties that could arise from uncertainty. I do not say that that is right, but it is worth looking at the paper from Professor Ekins, because it posits some modest amendments that may be worth considering at a later stage in the Bill’s progress. I do no more than float the idea. As it is, however, I see nothing that can be regarded as in any way an assault on judicial review in the first part of the Bill. These are sensible and modest reforms—and reform is not the same as an attack; reform is exactly what we do to keep law up to date.
Let me now turn to the remaining parts of the Bill, starting with criminal procedure. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with modernising procedure; technology changes, and we all learn. The shadow Secretary of State and I practised in criminal law for much of our careers—as, indeed, did the shadow Minister—and in our time we have all seen procedure change out of all recognition in some respects, often for the better. I think we all agree that serious sexual offences, for example, are handled much better now than they were when we started off in practice at the Bar. In particular, claimants get a far better deal. That is just one example, but I can think of other safeguards that have been built in—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and a raft of other measures—and have acted to prevent abuses against defendants in the course of investigations.
Procedure can always be improved, and we ought always to be able to take advantage of technology, as we do with video-recorded evidence and so on. Again, there is nothing objectional about that in principle, and I do not think there is any harm in greater flexibility either. Easy movement between the courts can certainly save time. However, I ask the Government to bear in mind that that needs to come with appropriate safeguards.
My concerns about this have been well set out in the Bar Council’s briefing. For example, when moving from in-person proceedings—which at the moment are often  remote proceedings—to a written procedure for certain types of offence, safeguards will be needed as to what precisely the specified offence is going to be. An example that the Justice Committee has highlighted in previous reports is that of a young person who has foolishly committed an act and who enters a guilty plea or accepts a caution, which is recordable. That plea is recorded and then, years down the track, because of the way our criminal records system currently works, they find that it is a serious obstacle to employment or educational opportunities that goes way beyond anything they had contemplated when they entered the guilty plea, perhaps to get it out of the way, at the time.
I am concerned that these categorised offences should not involve anything that is imprisonable, and I also suggest that we should not use the provision for anything that is recordable. I can see that in certain types of offence, such as the non-payment of the television licence fee, this could certainly speed things along, but there needs to be a safeguard for anything that is likely to have an effect on someone’s character, reputation or future life chances. The safeguard is surely that we ensure that an informed decision has been made, which must imply access to legal advice before the decision to enter an online guilty plea is made.
We all know that criminal proceedings are often dynamic and that things come to light as we go along. That can happen with the disclosure of material online as much as in person, and there must be a specific provision to withdraw a guilty plea at an appropriate time if it becomes apparent that an arguable defence could be raised. That seems to be a fair balance, and it needs to be specifically written in, either in the legislation or in regulations. I hope that the Ministers will undertake, at the very least, to reflect that in regulations; that is probably the most constructive way, rather than changing the primary legislation.
We also have to look at one or two anomalies. I note, for example, that in relation to the provision for online procedures, the trigger age relates to someone over the age of 18. However, in clause 4, which deals with
“Guilty plea in writing: extension to proceedings following police charge”,
subsection (3)(b) states that the provision shall apply where
“the accused had attained the age of 16 when charged”.
I do not see the logic in that, so perhaps the Minister can help me when he responds to the debate. What is the logic in using the age of 18 in one provision and 16 in a provision that covers broadly similar grounds? We need particular safeguards for dealing with young offenders, to ensure that they do not enter a plea that is not fully informed, either through immaturity or a lack of good advice, as that could have permanent consequences for their future. It is not the principle that I object to; I am just concerned that we get those safeguards in place.
While I am on the subject of criminal procedure, I must point out that modernisation is fine and has its place, but what happens tomorrow in the Budget is as important as anything else. I am all for making the best possible use of scant judicial resources and time, but none of the proposals compensates for the proper funding of the courts system. Sadly, we have a legacy of decades of underfunding—under Governments of all colours, let us be blunt. There is no party point to be made here. Under all Governments, the courts system has not been  funded to the level it requires, and I hope that the Secretary of State will use his important position within the Government to take forward the ambitious spending bid that his predecessor talked about. If he does that, he will have my support and that of many others on both sides of the House. Investment in justice is investment in the fabric of society, and that is good for us all in the long term. That is a slight digression, but I hope I will be forgiven for raising it in the circumstances.
I now turn to the remaining provisions. Moving tribunals across makes sense. Many people who practise in the tribunals would say that it is about time that tribunals were not regarded as slightly out on a limb and as a bit of a poor relation. A closer alignment will be beneficial for their interoperability. For example I noted during the pandemic that some tribunals’ rule systems, not being the normal Supreme Court rules, lagged behind the courts in adapting to online hearings, so the change can only be beneficial.
I wish the Government had gone further and adopted the recommendations of the Justice Committee’s report on coroners. As far as it goes, the change is well and good but there is a missed opportunity to which we can perhaps return in due course. There is nothing in the Bill to which I object, and I see the good sense in greater flexibility on certain types of hearing, but that is no reason for not being more ambitious in relation to coroners either in this Bill or in future legislation. As the Bill proceeds, I hope we will be able to look at that again, because the coronial system is important to the country and particularly to victims and bereaved families, and it operates with variability, if I might put it that way, across the country. The Select Committee’s well-reasoned proposals deserve more consideration than they have perhaps had so far.
There is an argument to be made about equality of arms, which is again about funding. Massive sums are not required to give the families of victims in complex inquests equality of arms with state agencies that do not appear on the other side in technical terms, because of the nature of a coroner’s inquiry, but in reality are making assertions that the families would rightly wish to challenge and explore. I hope the Government will reflect on that as a measure of fairness and equity.
This Bill has proved to be less controversial than it was flagged up to be, and it is the better for that. It is a sensible, conservative set of incremental improvements and proposals that are welcome and should be supported. Parliament, the judiciary and the Executive have important and equal functions in our system. The rule of law does not mean that every public action has to be subject to judicial review, but it does mean that judicial review should be sufficient, strong and robust enough to ensure that victims of injustice are recompensed.
It is also important that we who sit in this House and who operate in the political sphere recognise the integrity of the judiciary in their sphere. As Lord Faulks’s review concluded, we can trust that the judiciary will act properly, accordingly and fully within the limits of their powers, and we should respect that, as we can also be confident that they will respect us.

Anne McLaughlin: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role, and I pay tribute to his predecessor, who was courteous and respectful to me at all times.
This Bill is just one part of a broader programme of constitutional reform designed to allow the Government to restrict the rights of some of their most vulnerable people, whether it is the Elections Bill putting barriers in the way of ordinary people being able to vote; the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill restricting the right to protest publicly; the Nationality and Borders Bill potentially criminalising people for saving the lives of asylum seekers; or this Bill reducing access to justice for those who have been badly treated by a public body. As Liberty has said, there is
“a concerted attempt to shut down potential routes of accountability and exert the power of the executive over Parliament, the courts and the public.”
Since my first election in 2015 I have sought to ensure that my constituents understand what goes on in this place. I think we can all agree that there is much that perplexes people, and that there are many levers that we and they can use of which they are not aware. There is a huge learning curve for a new MP so, as I got to grips with things, I tried to pass on what I learnt.
As time has moved on, I have turned my attention to the complexity of the language which can create barriers for people who do not do parliamentary speak. Since I became my party’s justice spokesperson, I have become acutely aware of the sometimes even more exclusive nature of legalese, so I feel something of a duty to interpret what is going on so that it can be readily understood by the average person in the street. To be clear, I am not questioning the average person’s ability to understand, but if someone does not use legal or parliamentary language regularly—and how many people out there do?—it will not come naturally. When we speak, we should remember that we are speaking not just to each other in here but to our constituents and to each other’s constituents. When they are losing their right to justice, we have an absolute duty to make sure that they know that that is what is happening. That is what I hope to do today. I am also happy to confirm that we are opposed to much of the Bill and will vote against its Second Reading.
Clause 2 seeks to oust Cart judicial reviews and, in Scotland, Eba judicial reviews. If an individual feels that a public body—such as the NHS, their local council or the Department for Work and Pensions, to name but a few—has failed to follow the law correctly in its decision-making process, that individual can appeal to the first-tier tribunal. If the first tier finds against them and that individual believes it has made an error of law, perhaps by overlooking vital evidence or misinterpreting the rules, that individual can appeal to the upper tribunal. Currently, if the upper tribunal refuses an appeal on the decision of the first-tier tribunal, the individual can ask to have the decision judicially reviewed. All sorts of criteria have to be met—one cannot simply ask for and get a judicial review—but currently people can at least apply. The legislation before us will remove that right. One might say, “Well, they’ve already had two bites of the cherry,” but the independent oversight of judicial review is being removed only for the tribunal system; currently, all other judicial reviews will continue. I say currently, because I share the fears expressed today by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in his article: we do not know where this will lead. We do know that it is so often the tribunal system that deals with the least powerful in our society, from whom the Bill removes the right to justice.
As the Law Society of Scotland has pointed out, the decisions of the upper tribunal are often taken by a single judge, based on the paperwork alone, so the person bringing the appeal has no opportunity to make their case in person, or to answer any questions that the judge may have. The opportunity to judicially review the decision of the upper tribunal is a vital last line of defence in cases in which the most fundamental of human rights are engaged.
We have heard much talk about the Government’s justification for taking away those rights, which appears to be the high volume of applications versus the low number of successful outcomes, but let us look at that. The evidence to support the Government’s position was so flawed that the Office for Statistics Regulation decided to investigate and found that the real success rate was at least 15 times higher than the Government figures showed. When the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) mentioned that, I saw the Secretary of State laughing, as if that was a derisory amount, but if we use the figures calculated by the Public Law Project, we see that that would amount to 40 people every year being incorrectly denied their right to appeal in cases where, as we have heard, the stakes can be incredibly high.
The Government seem to class an appeal as successful only if it first overturns the decision of the upper tribunal, is given permission to appeal and that appeal is then won further up the chain. They completely miss the point that Cart reviews serve to correct errors of law even if the appeal is ultimately unsuccessful. I cannot for the life of me see how all this can happen without a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) has argued and will no doubt argue further in her speech.
Throughout my speech, I feel like I should be saying, “As the right hon. Member for Tottenham said,” because it feels like we have swapped speeches. I am trying to find different examples. We have heard that even the Government’s own figures say that the change will save only around £400,000 per year. Never mind the spending on the art collection: £2.6 million was spent on refurbishing No. 9 Downing Street as a media centre, and the saving represents less than one sixth of that. What is more important?
Let me return to why this type of judicial review is so important. I want to give an example of when it saved somebody’s life. This case concerns a Venezuelan man and his family who had fled to the UK after witnessing the violent murder of his friend by state actors. He arrived in Edinburgh and was refused asylum claimed on the grounds that if he was sent back to Venezuela, the perpetrators, who clearly had scant regard for human life, would seek to silence him. The first-tier tribunal and the upper tribunal surmised that, because he had suggested in evidence that he would not be able to recognise the killers, he had nothing to fear. Thankfully, he had that vital last line of defence and was able to judicially review the decision.
During the proceedings, the court found that both tribunals had made an error of law in misunderstanding this traumatised man’s evidence. He could testify to the time and location of the murder and he could be a credible witness in an investigation—perhaps his memory would be jogged by viewing photographs or creating  photofits. It was obvious that the perpetrators would surely know that and would do anything within their power to prevent him from speaking up on his return.
The upshot was that the man was allowed to appeal. He won his appeal and was saved from deportation and almost certain persecution and death. How can the Government justify even to themselves taking away those rights?
The reversal of Cart-type judicial reviews could, as Liberty and others have pointed out, affect cases of access to vital benefits, leaving people with disabilities and those facing destitution and homelessness without a last line of defence. Nobody can guarantee that they will not one day have a disability, and very few people can guarantee—perhaps a few in here can—that they will not be absolutely dependent on disability benefits to survive financially. If, for some reason, they were to be denied those benefits, as happens far too regularly, and appealed against it, they would deserve the right to question that decision-making process.
I want to focus now on the suspended quashing orders and the prospective-only remedies in clause 1. They will not apply in Scottish courts, but because they can and will affect UK-wide laws, they will affect people living in Scotland—until, of course, we are independent, which I hope will not be too long from now. These changes could have a big impact on the Scottish courts for other reasons that I will come onto a little later—it is something known as forum shopping. Whether or not these orders are primarily for England and Wales, they are just plain wrong.
Let us look at quashing orders. The right hon. Member for Tottenham talked about the case of the employment tribunal fees. Basically, in a landmark judicial review in 2017, the Supreme Court found in favour of the applicant. I will not repeat everything that he said, but given that people were being charged up to £1,200 to access justice, this was a great outcome that will have made a big difference to many. If clause 1 had been in place then, those extortionate fees could have stayed in place until a date determined by the court. That would have given the Government time to rectify the unlawful policy. In other words, they would have been able to change the law so that the thing that had just been judged to be unlawful was suddenly lawful. Is that not incredible?

Angela Crawley: Specifically on the important point about tribunal fees, this Government could have listened carefully to comments from across this House before introducing them. However, judicial review served as the primary purpose and vehicle for an individual to take action against this Government. How does my hon. Friend think this Government will be able to have that action taken against them in the future if they have their way with this Bill?

Anne McLaughlin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but she is wrong to think that I can suggest anything, because I cannot do so. I would love to know what the Secretary of State is saying about this. We really cannot underestimate the chilling effect that this will have. It will put people off attempting to access justice in the first place. Who would put themselves through all this for no tangible outcome? Clause 1 creates a perfect storm of claimants having no incentive to challenge the Government or other public bodies, whereas the said public bodies and Government can proceed safe in the  knowledge that they can do what they like. It is the risk of being held to account and the potential for challenge that drives good decisions and policy making.
As I said earlier, despite clause 1 being restricted to the courts of England and Wales, there will be an impact on the Scottish courts. If the Scottish courts are not directly subjected to clause 1, which they are not, what is to stop people from using the courts in Scotland to bring judicial review challenges on UK-wide legal matters? After all, it makes sense to take a case to a court where judges have more discretion and a wider set of legal remedies. So, while on the one hand, I am always happy to showcase anything that we do well in Scotland and certainly very happy to link that to reasons why Scotland should be independent. If such a practice became widespread, the Scottish courts could face pressure on valuable resources, which could result in delays.
In conclusion, as Liberty reminds us in its evidence, the independent review of administrative law considered prospective-only remedies, but chose not to recommend them. It chose not to recommend a presumption for suspended quashing orders, nor did it recommend restricting judicial discretion to use alternative remedies. It did not recommend the use of ouster clauses. It based its recommendation to reverse Cart on later-to-be-discovered flawed Government statistics. However, the Government continue to push a Bill that blurs the separation of powers, restrains judicial discretion and, most importantly, discourages the public from challenging the decisions of the Government and public bodies. The SNP will be voting against Second Reading tonight, but I very much hope that some of the many concerns shared in here today by many Members will be considered before we proceed to scrutinise the Bill in Committee.
I am now going to end in a way that I never, ever envisaged I would do, which is by quoting a Conservative MP—the aforementioned right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, who has said:
“Be warned: this government is robbing you of your right to challenge the state”.
We should heed that warning seriously.

Jeremy Wright: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), although, unlike her, I find much to welcome in this Bill, particularly the parts of it that deal with sensible reforms to court processes, subject, of course, to the safeguards to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Select Committee, quite sensibly referred.
I want to concentrate my remarks on part 1 of the Bill, which focuses on judicial review. It is worth stressing at the outset, as others have done, just how important judicial review is to our constitutional balance. Judicial review is not, of course, there to be used as a route by which judges can run the country, and its limitations are not widely understood. Its focus in on the way a decision is made, not on the wisdom of the decision itself, which means that those whose decisions are ruled to be unlawful in the exercise of judicial review are, in fact, seldom precluded from reaching the same conclusion subsequently via a revised process.
Judicial review has practical, as well as constitutional, benefits. It can improve decision making retrospectively, as it obliges badly made decisions to be made again, but  also prospectively, as the shadow of judicial scrutiny tends to encourage Government Departments to give more thought to the rationale for decisions before they are made. The lawfulness of Government decisions is not just important for its own sake, but because it enhances their effectiveness by making it more likely that those subject to them will accept them. Surely that has rarely been more important than when the Government have sought to curtail our liberties during a pandemic for the sake of public health.
Fundamentally, as a matter of constitutional principle, judicial review demonstrates that no one—not even Governments—is above the law. For me, nothing summed that up more clearly than when the Government of which I was part contested a judicial review case in the Supreme Court, on the hugely significant political question of whether the Government could initiate our departure from the European Union without further parliamentary sanction. When the Government lost that case, I—the Government’s Attorney General—could walk out of Court and confirm without hesitation or reservation that the Government accepted the Court’s judgment and would act accordingly. That is this country’s commitment to the rule of law in action.
The fact that judicial review can be irritating to Governments is not only no reason to erode it; it may, in fact, be a positive reason not to. Changes to judicial review should be approached with caution and this Bill seeks to change it in two specific ways. Let me say just a little about each of them. I will start with judicial reviews against the class of decisions identified in the case of Cart. In those cases, clause 2 seeks to exclude what are, in effect, further appeals by another name. I have sympathy with the Government’s objective, although I do not find the argument of cost and inconvenience to the legal system persuasive. I am much more persuaded by the argument that the current situation undermines another fundamental principle of our constitutional settlement—that of parliamentary sovereignty.
It is clear that Parliament intended there to be no appeal against the upper tribunal’s decision itself to refuse an appeal from the lower-tier tribunal. Constructing what is, in effect, a back-door route to such an appeal is a clear challenge to Parliament’s intent. I would therefore support a proportionate measure to exclude such replacement appeals as a matter of routine, but it is important for Parliament to reach a considered view on what it really wants to exclude. Having another go at the same argument is what Parliament has said it does not want, but I am not convinced that it said with clarity that it also wishes to exclude challenge to an upper tribunal acting in excess of its powers. I am not convinced, either, that Parliament should say that, but I fear that it may be what the current wording of the clause would achieve.
This is no time for the fascinating arguments about the merits and demerits of ouster clauses, you will be relieved to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do think  that if the Government seek to use the mechanism set out in clause 2 they must be rigorous in excluding only what is necessary to give effect to Parliament’s direct will and not to prevent a check on acts beyond the upper tribunal’s mandate or powers as given to it by Parliament. Such acts would be rare, but, if they happened, would constitute a challenge to what Government legislated for and therefore to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, too. The wording of clause 2 will therefore need further discussion.
I now come to the additional provisions on judicial review in clause 1. Although it may well be arguable that the court already has power to suspend the effect of a quashing order, I can understand the Government’s wish to make that clear, as I can see that a suspended quashing order is, at the very least, a more elegant option than making a declaration of illegality but stopping short of quashing a decision because of the potential administrative chaos it would likely cause. I have more concerns, though, about removing or limiting the retrospective effect of quashing an unlawful decision—not, in itself, a recommendation of the independent review of administrative law. In particular, I am concerned about the suggestion that this would be routine and not exceptional. Finding a decision to be unlawful but then saying that that unlawfulness applies only to those affected by it in the future and not in the past puts the court in a strange position.
The general premise of judicial review has, for some time, been that if a court finds a decision to have been made in such a flawed way that it was made unlawfully, it is saying that, in effect, the decision was not made at all. Those adversely affected by its making, from the point of its making, are then entitled to rely on the court’s ruling to pursue redress for the effect on them of a decision that has been made void. Removing the opportunity for those individuals or organisations to do so may constitute a significant detriment to their interests and should not be done without consideration for those interests. In passing, I observe that others have said that it also gives considerable power to judges to keep unlawful decisions alive for some, which one might think jars with the apparent premise that some use for judicial review reform, justified or otherwise—that judicial review judges have too much power.
Removing retrospective effect also presents a logical conundrum. A quashing order will be made only if the court believes that the decision was taken in such a defective way as to require it to be deemed unlawful and therefore of no effect. But removing retrospective effect requires the same court, at the same time, to determine that the decision was not so defective as to require all those subject to it up to the date of judgment to be protected from its impact. There may be circumstances where it is appropriate for the court to decide to do those two conflicting things at once, but they must be rare.
The difficulty with the way in which clause 1(9), in particular, is constructed is that it suggests that in fact those circumstances should represent the norm. I do accept that clause 1(9) requires the court to regard such an order as offering adequate redress as well as giving the opportunity for the court to do otherwise if there is good reason to do so. However, the clause still creates a presumption in favour of limiting or removing retrospectivity. As I say, I am not convinced that that is the right approach, but, at the very least, Ministers will need to assure us that in the consideration of whether non-retrospective quashing orders offer adequate redress, the interests of those who would have relied on that retrospectivity, as well as those who may benefit from prospective effect, should be given particular weight in the balancing exercise the court must conduct before making the order.
I finish where I began, with the fundamental importance of judicial review in our constitutional settlement. It is that importance that should cause us to be very slow to tamper with it, unless we are convinced first that there is a real need to do so that goes well beyond irritation with Government losses and, secondly, that any changes we make are well judged, thought through and do not cause collateral damage. Although I have no wish to impede the Bill’s Second Reading, given the positive effect of other parts of it, I am not convinced that part 1 on judicial review is yet in the right place to meet those objectives.

Wera Hobhouse: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). As someone with no legal training, I always enjoy listening to people with legal training who make clear what the issues are. I hope the Government listen carefully to the concerns that he has raised about part 1 of the Bill. As always, the Government are putting forward perfectly reasonable proposals and mixing them up with something that is very controversial. On the Opposition side of the House, we are not at all convinced that this Bill is anything other than an attack on the most vulnerable and most marginalised in our society, and we want to protect them.
The Government claim that this Bill will hand additional tools to judges. What the Bill actually does is restrict judicial review. Judicial review is working well in this country. Although these proposals might not go as far as many feared, I remind colleagues of Lord Neuberger’s words that judicial review
“is what ensures that the executive arm of government keeps to the law and that individual rights are protected”.
Government accountability is fundamental to our democratic society. That is the principle on which Liberal Democrats oppose this Bill.
Taken against the Government’s broader programme of constitutional reform, it is difficult to see this Bill as anything other than part of a concerted effort to take power away from individuals and to stop them holding Governments to account. In the past year, we have seen: the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which restricts people’s rights to peaceful assembly and protest; voter ID proposals under the Elections Bill that stop people from vulnerable and marginalised backgrounds from exercising their democratic right to vote; and attempts to weaken the Human Rights Act 1998 and the UK’s commitment to the European convention on human rights. Now we have a Bill that limits people’s ability to hold Governments to account through the courts.
Key elements within the Bill are particularly concerning. Clause 2 permits the courts to abolish Cart judicial reviews and imposes de facto ouster clauses. That removes a vital safeguard in situations where tribunals make mistakes. We have heard about that several times already this afternoon. The vast majority—92%—of Cart judicial reviews are immigration and asylum cases. Many of the remaining cases concern access to benefits for disabled people and other people facing destitution. Those are all situations where the stakes are incredibly high for the people involved.

Matt Rodda: The hon. Lady is making a fascinating speech and some very strong points. Does she agree that there is now an established  body of judicial review going back a number of years that seems to demonstrate that this particular area of law has allowed the Executive to be held to account by the most vulnerable and weakest in our society? Does she also agree that an additional benefit, as mentioned by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), is that it focuses the minds of those working in Government—in particular those in the civil service and Ministers—to provide better quality decision making in the first place?

Wera Hobhouse: This issue absolutely is about that particular section of society who seem to be under attack in this case. Decisions have been made where those people should have been supported in the first place, and then they do not even have a comeback under the law, and that is just wrong.
What is more, the low success rate, which the Government are using to defend their plans, massively understates the number of Cart judicial reviews that secure a positive outcome for the claimant. Scrapping Cart judicial reviews goes against everything that a fair-minded liberal democracy stands for. We Liberal Democrats will never cease to stand up for such rights.
The Government state in their press release that
“it is expected that the legal text that removes the Cart judgment will serve as a framework that can be replicated in other legislation.”
In other words, they are admitting that the Bill is the thin end of the wedge and that it could open the door to more ouster clauses in the future, which would create whole areas of Government action that could not be judicially reviewed, making them immune from accountability through the courts.
Liberty has described the Bill as
“part of this Government’s bid to make itself…untouchable.”
The Law Society warns that the Bill
“should ring alarm bells for people who come up against the might of the state.”
There can be no justification for such a Bill in a democratic society. I urge colleagues across the House to vote against it.

Fay Jones: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). I rise in support of the Bill and am keen to see it make progress through the House. Before I go on, this is my first opportunity to say how delighted I am to see the Secretary of State in his post and the new Minister in his place. I echo the comments made by the Secretary of State about the former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland).
The Government are committed to fulfilling their 2019 manifesto pledge, and I am pleased that we are committing to yet another pledge to protect our democracy. The Bill will—at last—streamline our judicial system in both England and Wales, making it much more efficient. It is a good example of justice machinery, and I am pleased that my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire will experience the benefits of these improvements.
I am glad that the Government recognise the impact of the pandemic on our court system and, as well as managing those pressures, are learning some helpful lessons and continuing with the steps they took during  the pandemic to bring some court proceedings online, saving valuable time and resources. I acknowledge that the Bill benefits both England and Wales and, as the representative of a constituency with roughly 60 miles of the border between our two nations, very much welcome provisions that will remove the statutory requirement that magistrates courts must be divided into separate local justice areas. My constituents will often travel across the border for employment, education and other things, and the judiciary is no exception. In that spirit, I will focus my remarks on the courts elements of the Bill.
I commend the Government for the work they have already done, particularly in the field of domestic abuse. I was proud last year to be a member of the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee and am even prouder that that Bill was prioritised by the Government during the height of the pandemic. The Government, conscious that coronavirus was not the biggest threat for those enduring lockdown with their abuser, made sure that the Committee could meet and that both sides of the House could scrutinise and improve that Bill.
One of the many strengths of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 is the improvements it has made to the family courts. On that, I would like to see this Bill go further. In family proceedings, the Domestic Abuse Act introduced an automatic ban on cross-examination in person when one party has been convicted of, given a caution for or charged with certain offences against the witness, or vice versa. The provisions also introduced an automatic ban on cross-examination in person when an on-notice protective injunction is in place between the party and witness or when there is other evidence of domestic abuse. That is a crucial step, and one that I am very proud of.
Having praised the Government, I will ask the Minister to go further—he will not be surprised by this—and consider further amendments for family court proceedings. I do so on behalf of my constituent, Natalie Davies, who came to see me and has given me permission to mention her and raise her case. She lives in my constituency with her partner, baby and two primary school-aged children from her previous relationship. In February, she came to ask for advice due to the complexity and sensitivity of a legal dispute between her and her ex-partner.
I will not go into too much detail about Natalie’s case. However, while the conclusion reached by the judge was in her favour, her experience in the family court was completely unacceptable. In her words, it was a “complete misery”. The way in which she was treated by the judge was simply wrong for a modern age. She claims that she was repeatedly undermined throughout her case, which caused her immense distress, and she felt as though a completely one-sided approach was taken. Her barrister later confirmed that the judge had to be persuaded to read both sides of the case. During her hearing, the judge referred to her as “young lady” and commented on the fact that she was “already”—his word—expecting a baby with her new partner. He also googled her home and searched for images of her new home on Rightmove.
Natalie complained to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, as is proper, but she had no response, until two days before a further hearing with the same judge. She was hastily told that her complaint had been rejected. She was told that no misconduct had taken place. Had  the judge fallen asleep, that would constitute misconduct, but patronising—even misogynistic—remarks and apparent predetermination on the part of the individual somehow did not constitute misconduct. I find that deeply troubling.
All in the House would of course agree that the judiciary must be free from direction by Ministers. That is entirely appropriate. However, the existing system is not working. This might well be out of scope of the Bill, but it appears to me and the other individuals to whom Natalie has introduced me since coming to see me in my surgery that we have an imbalance here, which I wonder whether we may explore as the Bill travels through the House.
We must look at a situation in which individuals do not have access to a clear and transparent complaints system. Natalie’s complaint was backed up with a written statement by her highly trained barrister, and yet it was still dismissed out of hand.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend makes a compelling case along particular lines. She is right about access to legal recourse. I do not know whether she has had a chance to look at the important speech given last week by the Attorney General, which sets out how, in parallel, people are using the courts to perpetuate political debates. Ironically, some people do not have access to justice, and others are using the courts for political ends, which is why the Bill is so important.

Fay Jones: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I bow to his experience in these matters. That should be considered as the Bill travels through the House. I want to see it make progress and I commend the Government for their ambitions thus far, but I would like, and would be grateful for, a conversation with the Minister about what we can do to ensure that all those who have the inevitably difficult experience of going through the family court are treated with the utmost respect.

Angela Crawley: Scotland’s justice system remains devolved and, as such, the powers to amend the judicial review process are, thankfully, protected. The UK Justice Secretary’s predecessor recognised that separate nature in March when he told the House:
“In respecting separate jurisdictions, as I always do, these proposals relate to England and Wales matters and have been carefully delineated in that way.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 510.]
The Minister must give similar guarantees that, if the Bill becomes law, the Government will not look to expand its scope to impact on Scotland’s independent, unique and distinct legal system. He must also acknowledge that he should not have the authority to attempt unilaterally to unpick such a fundamental part of the UK constitution. The Scottish judicial review process has evolved over many years and the result is a proper system of checks and balances that does not need interference from Westminster.
That separate and valued legal system means that most of the Bill will not impact on my constituents or on Scotland, but parts of it will, and that does not  detract from my concern about the way in which the Government are operating towards the judiciary in England and Wales. It appears to me that the Bill is part of a broader drive to increase the power of the Executive, to limit oversight, and to reduce the ability to seek judicial remedy in the courts and to hold this Government and Governments after them to account.
I say a broader drive, because the Bill is moving through this place at the same time as the Nationality and Borders Bill, the Elections Bill, the review of the Human Rights Act and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
Each taken on their own merit should be cause for concern, but as a package they leave little doubt that the Government’s strategy is to roll back the rights of vulnerable groups, while simultaneously removing the checks and balances on the Government’s Executive power.
The Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue Parliament in 2019 was the first step on the road to an increasingly authoritarian style of government. Since the two high-profile defeats on article 50 and prorogation, and several High Court rulings on immigration and employment tribunal fees, the Government have been vocal in their criticism of the justice system. The Home Secretary herself referred to “lefty lawyers” and “do gooders” looking to hamstring the legal system. In reality, the Bill is a crackdown by the Government, who are unable to move past the frustration of high-profile defeats in the Supreme Court. Rather than asserting their Executive authority and removing checks and balances, the Government should be listening to calls from senior legal experts across these islands and their own review.
Lord Faulks, a former Conservative Justice Minister, wrote that Ministers should “think long and hard” before seeking to curtail the powers to the judiciary. He added: “Our view is that the government and Parliament can be confident that the courts will respect institutional boundaries in exercising their inherent powers to review the legality of government action. Politicians should, in turn, afford the judiciary the respect which it is undoubtedly due when it exercises these powers.”
With that in mind, I urge Members to vote against the Bill and maintain the vital checks and balances in this crucial area of law.

Laura Farris: I, too, will focus my comments on the first part of the Bill, which concerns judicial review. I support the exclusion of upper-tribunal permission decisions from the ambit of judicial review—the so-called Cart decisions. That is a merit-based argument. Briefing notes I received state that removing the option of recourse to judicial review in immigration risks injustice, and I hope Members will not mind if I set out briefly why I do not think that is the case.
It is important to note what clause 2 on Cart decisions does not do. It does not mean that difficult immigration or asylum cases will not end up in the appeal courts. It is the case now, and will remain the case, that the most difficult cases concerning article 3 rights on freedom from torture, and article 2 rights on the right to life, are nearly always adjudicated in the Court of Appeal. That is because they have made a natural progression from the first tier to the upper tier and the Court of Appeal. All the clause does is deal with permission to appeal.  The clause gives the applicant first the opportunity to go to the first-tier tribunal and seek permission to appeal, with the threshold being whether the case is reasonably arguable. They fail that. They go to the upper-tier tribunal and again say that they have a case that is reasonably arguable. That is refused. They then go to the High Court and seek judicial review. It is only that upper layer that is being removed.
In no other area of law, in either the private or the public realm, does the applicant have three bites of the cherry—not in employment law, not in family law, not in education law, community care, or local government. You cannot leapfrog a decision of the upper court or tribunal to seek recourse through another means. I have listened carefully to the arguments made by those on the Opposition Benches, and no one has yet defined why immigration, and immigration alone, should belong in a special category where people have an extra bite of the cherry.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who is no longer in her place, suggested that it goes against every fair-minded decision of a Government to exclude Cart-type judicial reviews, but that overlooks the difficulty that the Supreme Court had when it determined this issue. Indeed, I say respectfully that it is rare to find such a nuanced decision in the Supreme Court. In the course of that judgment, at paragraph 91, Lord Phillips said:
“My initial inclination was to treat the new two tier tribunal system as wholly self-sufficient… Can it not be left to the Senior President…to ensure that the tribunal judiciary is so deployed as to ensure the appropriate degree of judicial scrutiny of decisions of the lower tier?”
Even Baroness Hale, who was the primary proponent, said:
“There must be a limit to the resources”
that we
“devote to the task of trying to get the decision right in any individual case.”
We on the Government Benches respectfully say that it must be right that, if the Supreme Court were faced with that decision again, it would answer in a different way. We know that because of Lord Hope’s remark in the Lords on 22 March that
“experience has shown that our decision has not worked”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 2021; Vol. 811, c. 710.]
The other reason I support clause 2 is to do with the overriding objective that lies at the heart of all civil procedure and the issue of proportionality. I know that there has been some disagreement among Members about how many Cart judicial reviews succeed. The independent review of administrative law report put it as low as less than 1%, the Government say it is 3%, and Liberty, which argues strongly in favour, says it may be nearer 5%. However, we have to be realistic. On any reading, we have a system where over 95% of these judicial review cases go nowhere, yet we know that that is the most common form of judicial review.
That is exactly what Lord Dyson warned against when permission was given in Cart. He said that “resources are limited” and that we do not want
“a return to the pre-2002 Act days in immigration and asylum cases when the courts were overwhelmed with unmeritorious judicial review claims.”

Anne McLaughlin: I am a bit confused. The hon. Lady said that taking away Cart judicial reviews would not stop somebody going to the Court of Appeal from the tribunal system, so I just wonder what the route is. Perhaps I have misunderstood.

Laura Farris: For an applicant to end up in the Court of Appeal, they would win or lose at first instance and either appeal or be appealed by the Home Office, the upper-tier tribunal would give permission for that appeal, and it would be heard in the upper-tier tribunal. The applicant would either win or lose again, and then they would find themselves appealed to the Court of Appeal. That will not change where difficult areas of human rights law are engaged.
The issue here is where the upper-tier tribunal says, “No, we won’t give permission to hear your appeal,” and then the applicant goes to the High Court and seeks a judicial review application. It is that narrow aspect that is excluded by the Bill. It is important to clarify that, because I think there is some uncertainty about whether human rights are being excluded, and I am glad that the hon. Lady asked me.

Anne McLaughlin: rose—

Laura Farris: I will make a little progress, because I know that time is limited.
The Opposition frequently push Government Members on the issue of backlog and delay. In the early days of the pandemic, they were right to do so, but I do not think that they can sustain an argument where they simultaneously criticise delays that have arisen because of the pandemic and advocate a disproportionality in an area of litigation where over 95% of claims are unsuccessful, clearly clogging up court time.
The second issue that I would like to address is the new flexibility in quashing orders, and particularly the issue of suspended quashing orders. I read the IRAL report very carefully. It reached its conclusion by reviewing the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Hurley and Moore. When it found that there had been a breach of the public sector equality duty, the Court made a declaration of illegality rather than a quashing order because it wanted to give the Secretary of State room to comply. As I see it, clause 1 is in keeping with that.
A number of organisations have written to me to say that, while they perhaps understand the basis of the decision, they are generally opposed to suspended quashing orders where the provisions of a clause will be void. Respectfully, I think that fails to properly engage with what is at stake. The public sector equality duty is a really helpful starting point here. Let us look at the way those cases were litigated through the appeal courts in the early days. We had the library closure cases, with Somerset County Council, Gloucestershire County Council and Surrey County Council all losing public sector equality duty cases. We then had the care home cases, such as South West Care Homes v. Devon County Council, and the mental health cases. All of them were in 2011, 2012 or 2013.
What is most striking about public sector equality duty cases now is that they almost never succeed; actually, I could not find an example of one that had succeeded since 2015. It occurred to me that it is at least possible that the reason the courts will not engage with those cases is that they think it is too onerous to quash.  I think that the Bill provides more scope, not less, for some of the progressive principles that can be advanced for a judicial review to succeed if it is not immediately the subject of a quashing order.
I also listened to observations made on the Opposition Benches about retrospective decisions and retrospective effect; what that would have meant in the Unison case and whether the Supreme Court would or would not have ordered the Ministry of Justice to repay the fees paid by litigants who were bringing claims during that period. I just do not think it is possible to read Lord Reed’s comments in that judgment and not find it was absolutely guaranteed that the Supreme Court would order the fees to be repaid. Let us look at clause 1(8) and (9), which set the criteria. The Supreme Court effectively applied them all and found that the repayment of fees was necessary, so I do not think it is a good example.
It is, however, worth recalling the case of HM Treasury v. Ahmed, which the Secretary of State mentioned in his opening remarks. That was a critical case, one of the first cases the Supreme Court heard, because it dealt with important issues of constitutional consequence and public interest. The Labour Government had done what any right-minded member of the public would think was sensible. They found three people who they suspected, but were not convicted, of terrorism offences. As a precautionary measure, they froze their assets. They believed they were entitled to do so under the United Nations Act 1946. They were, in fact, not entitled to do so and the Supreme Court found them to have acted ultra vires and quashed. We know that at least one Supreme Court Justice was nervous about that. Lord Hope said:
“I would however suspend the operation of the orders that I would make for a period of one month from the date of the judgment to give the Treasury time to consider what steps, if any, they should now take.”
What if they had had the power to suspend the order? We know the judgment was handed down on 27 January 2010. By 5 February, Alistair Darling had introduced the Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Act 2010. By 10 February, two weeks later, that had received Royal Assent. It was manifestly in the public interest for Parliament to have the opportunity to legislate on that. How much better if the Court had had the opportunity not to make a quashing order, but to suspend.
That brings me to my final point, which is something I do not think anyone on the Opposition Benches has engaged with at all: what the doctrine of nullity is really about. In private law, the Court has the opportunity to consider and to decide that something is unlawful, but in public law it does not just decide that; it quashes altogether. I am of the view that allowing some discretion, where the effect of a quashing order would potentially run contrary to the public interest or conflict with what might be the will of Parliament, offers a more constructive opportunity to resolve public law problems.

Anne McLaughlin: I thank the hon. Lady for again letting me in. Surely this is ordering judges to have a presumption in favour of prospective, rather than retrospective, quashing orders? We are not giving them the opportunity to use it—we are saying, “You will use it as a default position.” That is the problem.

Laura Farris: I am not sure I entirely agree with that. I do agree that clause 1 sets out the criteria they need to apply, but in reality they are common sense principles and I do not agree that the Court’s discretion is being fettered in the way the hon. Lady suggests.

Rob Butler: It is a pleasure—although always slightly daunting to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris)— to speak in this debate. I must start by declaring an interest. I served as a magistrate for 12 years prior to my election and spent almost five years as a member of the Youth Justice Board. It is on the subject of the magistrates and youth courts that I wish to focus my remarks. The proposals for changes to procedures in the magistrates courts strike me as sensible and balanced measures that will, in many respects, simply bring them into the 21st century. The new processes and procedures herald a marked improvement to the way courts run, saving time, improving efficiency and therefore helping to ensure speedier justice.
It is appropriate to echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) and mention the tremendous achievements in the magistrates courts over the past 18 months. Following the inevitable disruption caused at the start of the pandemic, the magistrates courts were incredibly quick to adapt to new methods to prevent delays to justice. With more than 85% of criminal cases falling entirely within the jurisdiction of the magistrates courts, they are absolutely vital to the overall smooth running of our judicial system. We should not forget that magistrates are volunteers. I pay tribute to them for all their efforts, alongside the staff of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, the legal representatives and other services, such as victim and witness support—the latter also volunteers.
The flexibility and adaptability of those working in the magistrates courts over the past 18 months is a clear demonstration of the capability, readiness and willingness of justices of the peace to embrace change.
I particularly welcome the digitising and streamlining of preliminary pretrial court proceedings via the common platform, the removal of unnecessary courtroom hearings, and the strengthening of links between Crown Court and magistrates courts. Creating the option for online written pleas will enable defendants to sit with their legal adviser at a time of their own choosing and submit the required information via the common platform. That must be preferable to waiting in a courthouse for hours on end for a hearing that will likely last just a few minutes.
Similarly, I believe that permitting an allocation decision to be made online or in the absence of the defendant, in the appropriate circumstances, will enable courts to progress cases and avoid unnecessary delays. This is especially welcome for indictable-only offences, where the appearance in the magistrates court is no more than a formality.
I am aware that there are concerns about ensuring that defendants will be properly equipped to make decisions about their cases if they are not physically in a courthouse. I share those concerns, so I am therefore very pleased that there will be safeguards to ensure that defendants have the right advice and support and, crucially, that a full court hearing will always be available  when needed and considered to be in the interests of justice. I am grateful to Ministers in the Ministry of Justice for reassuring me already that especial care will be paid to particularly vulnerable defendants and to children.
The introduction of a new automatic online conviction and standard statutory penalty procedure is a further positive step. It has long struck me as disproportionate for someone to come to court if they have not paid for a rail ticket or have fished with an unlicensed rod. An online process that does not require the involvement of a magistrate seems a much more appropriate way of dealing with such cases. Of course, it will be necessary to ensure that only very low-level offences of such a type take place without direct judicial oversight, and I am pleased that the addition of any further offences to the mechanism would need to be explicitly agreed by Parliament.
The decision to abolish local justice areas makes further good sense. The current system can result in arbitrary borders that prevent a magistrate from sitting in a court just a few miles from their home if it happens to be in a different LJA. The proposals in this Bill will mean that work and people can be distributed according to need and availability. One consequence will be the ability for closer working between Crown Court and magistrates courts. That greater alignment of different branches of the judicial family is undoubtedly another positive step.
However, a few questions arise from the proposals to scrap LJAs. At present, each area has its own bench chairman, deputies, chair of youth court and so on—magistrates who volunteer to take on leadership and pastoral roles. It would be helpful to learn a little more from the Minister about how those functions will be carried out in future, and to have reassurance that magistrates will still have a degree of agency over decisions and practices affecting them directly. We also know that local areas can see different patterns of crime, distinct from one another. Until now, magistrates courts have been able to reflect that in their sentencing, so I am keen to hear from the Minister about how specific local factors will be reflected henceforth.
Of course, magistrates courts can only function well when there are enough magistrates to sit in them. The number of those on the bench has fallen dramatically in recent years. I am pleased the Government are now attempting to recruit more people to the magistracy, but it is important that magistrates represent all walks of life, all ages and all backgrounds, and I wonder whether the Minister might tell the House a little about how he hopes that might be achieved in the years ahead.
There are relatively few clauses in this Bill affecting the youth courts. There are provisions regarding the transfer of cases when a young person reaches the age of 18, but I will use this opportunity to repeat to the Minister and his colleagues in the Department my call for young people to be dealt with by the courts according to the age at which they committed their offence, rather than their age when they first appear in court, which is the current process.
I was pleased to introduce a ten-minute rule Bill on this subject last February that received support from across the House, including from some very learned and distinguished hon. Members. As I said then, it would be a relatively simple change to make in legislation, because  in many respects, it does no more than correct an anomaly. For those affected, however, its effect would be profound because of the different sentencing options that are uniquely available in the youth jurisdiction. Such a change would enable young people to put their mistakes behind them and make a constructive contribution to our society. It would put more emphasis on preventing reoffending, which is key to reducing the number of victims of crime—something that we all wish to see.
The number of such cases may not be high, but they have a massive impact on the young people concerned. I heard only this week about the case of a boy who was arrested at 16 and is still waiting for his first court appearance three and a half years later, now he is nearly 20. That cannot be right, so I hope that as the Bill progresses through Parliament, Ministers will consider whether this could be the appropriate time and place to bring about a change that is supported throughout the justice system.
Much of our debate on the Bill has focused on measures that relate to judicial review. They are certainly very important, but we should not overlook the other positive steps that are being taken to improve our justice system. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to highlight the Government’s strong and sensible changes to magistrates courts’ proceedings, which I am confident will bring benefits to defendants, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and magistrates themselves, as well as to victims of crime. That is why I am pleased to support the Bill.

Kieran Mullan: I welcome the chance to speak in this debate as a new member of the Select Committee on Justice. We have not considered judicial review in any great detail, but we have considered court capacity, the use of virtual hearings and remote technology, and the work of coroners’ courts.
We are all aware by now of the challenges that the pandemic has caused for court capacity, but I think we can be proud of, and should recognise, the enormous efforts to ensure that our justice system across the country continued in a more robust way than in many similar jurisdictions. I thank and pay tribute to court staff for their work to enable that, and I echo the positive remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) about magistrates who give their time.
Of course that does not mean that we do not face a backlog, but I think we should remind the Opposition, or what is left of them—certainly their spokespeople—that the backlogs that we faced prior to the pandemic were lower than some backlogs that victims faced under the last Labour Government. Outstanding cases at the Crown court were at just over 40,000 before the pandemic; they hit 50,000 under Labour. A quick search of Hansard does not produce the outrage that we have heard today from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) or that I suspect we will hear from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) when he winds up. They were not so bothered about it when they were in government, but they seem particularly frustrated now.
However, let us be in no doubt that backlogs are a problem and we need to bring them down. That is important, because delays in justice have an impact on victims and the innocent: importantly, we lose witnesses  and victims, which ultimately means that people who should face justice do not. That is why it is right that we look at ways to innovate and do things differently if it can help with the backlog. Of course there is always risk when we do things differently, but we have to weigh it up against the injustice for those who are waiting for their day in court.
The Justice Committee heard a variety of evidence about the benefits and drawbacks of remote hearings, which are similar to the benefits and drawbacks that we have debated in relation to remote healthcare. Rightly, victims’ advocates have highlighted that for some people, remote hearings are a real challenge, so I ask the Minister to outline the steps that the Government will take to protect vulnerable groups from being inadvertently disadvantaged by remote hearings and by other changes in the Bill.
As hon. Members have said, reform cannot take place instead of investment; funding must be provided to help us to address the backlog with extra sitting days and Nightingale courts. We have seen some good progress in that regard.
Yes, the justice system has historically faced cuts, but I want to take the opportunity to remind people that those cuts did not happen in isolation. At the time, £1 in every £4 spent by the Government was borrowed; we were spending in an unsustainable way. It is easy now to criticise cuts that were made, and perhaps the balance of cuts across all the Government’s work has not been correct—that is why many of us welcome the extra spending for justice—but to make out that those were easy choices at the time and blame everything on the cuts, when we know that ultimately the Government were reacting to a situation not of their making, is not fair.
I thank the very many hard-working people who are struggling to deliver the important function of coroners’ courts and who did so over the pandemic, but I have to say that I feel concern. As we move away from full hearings, we will need some very clear routes available for decisions when people choose not to have a full hearing. The Government talk about cases being uncontroversial and simple, but I am afraid that the harsh reality we have heard from coroners’ courts is that although they are overwhelmingly conducted with care and attention to families and with open and transparent process, that is not always the case. Coroners’ courts still reflect the style and approach of individual coroners.
I would not want the measures that the Government are introducing through the Bill to have inadvertent consequences where coroners took decisions in cases that would objectively have benefited from a full hearing, or that families might feel would have benefited from one. It would be good if the Minister outlined what opportunities families might have to challenge decisions that coroners make under the new legislation.
I want to make some brief remarks about judicial review. I think we have to recognise that access to justice, in the broadest possible sense, is a public good, but too often some of those involved in the provision of this public good see it as sacrosanct, and seem to believe that there is some Utopia where demand for justice is perfectly met. They often strive for that without accepting that the provision of justice as a public good must  compete for public resources alongside the provision of other public goods, such as education, healthcare and defence. It is perfectly legitimate for a Government to consider whether public money spent on judicial reviews funded by taxpayers is public money that might be better spent on other public goods—or whether it might be better spent in the judiciary on a more effective way of securing access to justice than the present system of judicial review. There might even be a simpler, better use of the courts’ time. I personally can see a vast public good in a certain fox killer having fewer opportunities to waste the courts’ time with repeated failed actions, especially given the stresses on the legal system that we have discussed.
Of course, controversies in this area of law are not new to the Chamber. We heard earlier from the Justice Secretary how the Labour Government pushed these ouster clauses and saw their merits at the time. The Refugee Council has said:
“this Bill threatens to deny asylum seekers a fair hearing of their…claim… We urge the Government to take these criticisms seriously and to act on them.”
The council was not talking about the Bill that is now before us; it was talking about the Bill that the shadow Justice Secretary attempted to steer through Parliament.
I think that we have to take a step back, and recognise that the public expect to see a balanced use of public resources in the courts across all the expenditure of public money. I am frequently appalled by the disproportionate amounts spent on legal aid for individuals to challenge decisions, including decisions made through judicial review. Does that serve the interests purely of justice? Perhaps yes, but does it represent a proportionate or justifiable allocation of public good in our society? Certainly not, and I think the British public understand that.
The hyperbole that has been expressed today about the narrow changes that are being made to judicial review undermines the credibility of the Members making those claims. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) and others how restricted and limited these measures are. To suggest that people who have had a couple of bites at the cherry are being denied justice because they do not have the opportunity to make one further attempt is an exaggeration that undermines those Members’ arguments.

Bob Seely: Much of the Bill is eminently sensible, and there is much in it to support. Like most people, I am pretty fed up with politicised lawyers endlessly trying to game the system. We need the application of common sense, and to call this Bill authoritarian is an absolute misuse of the term.
I will not speak for more than four minutes or so. I want to talk about how we can improve the general principles of the Bill in respect of coroners’ time and police time spent dealing with cases in which bodies are washed up on the coastline, and in particular about the need for the mandatory taking of DNA samples from people who are to be buried at sea. I thank the Isle of Wight coroner, Caroline Sumeray, for her advice on this, and indeed for her work on behalf of Islanders.
There were three places in the UK where burial at sea was allowed: Tynemouth in the north-east, Newhaven in Sussex, and one and a half miles south-west of The  Needles, on the Isle of Wight. Now, I understand, the area off The Needles is the only place where burial at sea is legal. At present there is no legal requirement for DNA samples to be taken from the bodies of the deceased.
The proposal for DNA sampling originated from an action at the UK Missing Persons Unit, which at the time was investigating about 60 unidentified bodies which had washed up over the previous year—not all at once, I hasten to add. The pathology unit at the Home Office undertook to progress that action, because every investigation involving a body washed up at sea requires a pathologist—and an awful lot of police time—to discover where the body might have come from. There is also the emotional distress of families who give DNA samples in the hope that it might be a relative of theirs; and if Aunt Madge has recently been buried at sea and, sadly, parts of her are washed up, the family do not necessarily want to give DNA samples because it is an unnecessary process.
There are about 10 burials at sea each year, and once or twice a year body parts are washed up on the coast of the Isle of Wight. At the end of 2016 a lower arm was found, and early in 2017 a matching skull was washed up. Later in the year, a man’s body was washed up near Brighstone, having come from Devon.
In October, a headless torso was found at Brook chine. In 2018, a skeleton was found on Barton beach and a skull was found in St Helens, with another being found later in the year in Seaview. The year after, a lady’s skeleton was washed up from Fishbourne, although that dated back to the bronze age. Clearly the tides had brought it up from a beach somewhere around Britain and it had been washed up on the Island. This is most likely to happen after storms, which either break up a coffin or force a body on to the land. They are often discovered by dog walkers on the beaches, and that is clearly not the sort of thing that they want to see first thing in the morning.
While this is a constituency issue for me, it could affect a coroner or police force anywhere in Britain that has a coastline. If we had a requirement for DNA sampling prior to burial at sea, it would be easy for the police or the coroner to check against the database and make a quick distinction about where the body part had come from. Clearly, if the database had no matching DNA sample, it could be a suicide, a murder or someone who had fallen off a liner somewhere in the world, but if a DNA sample could be matched, it would save police time, save the coroner’s time and save the emotional distress of the families involved.
The costs of the coastguards, helicopters, police spotter planes and inquests all add up. One of the principles of the Bill involves using the coroners and the police to achieve more efficiency and, frankly, to do their work in a more productive way. I therefore believe that, as good as the Bill is, it could be improved by the facilitation of mandatory DNA sampling on the UK DNA database so that the police and coroners can quickly identify where body parts washed up on the UK coastline have come from.

Andrew Slaughter: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) to his place and  wish him well on his first outing for the Ministry of Justice. He might be tempted to reciprocate when he speaks, but as this is my third time in the job, that would be unnecessary, just like significant parts of this Bill.
I am sorry to be leaving the Justice Committee after a number of years, not least because of the able and consensual chairing of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). I need not feel neglected, however, as so many members of the Committee have followed me to the Chamber today. This is almost like a meeting of the Justice Committee. With the hon. Members for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), for Newbury (Laura Farris), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) here, we almost have a full house. I commend all their contributions, and indeed the contributions of all other Members this evening. This has been an intelligent and considered debate that I hope will set a good precedent for the exchanges across the Dispatch Box.
Parts of the Bill are functional and unexceptional, and we will not make points for the sake of it. Indeed, much of part 2 has been revived from previous Bills that fell in the political mêlées of the past few years. The debate has shown, however, that there are serious concerns around part 1, as the shadow Lord Chancellor, the Scottish National party and Lib Dem spokespersons and others have indicated. I particularly want to mention the contribution from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who, with his usual thoughtfulness, went through some of the problems in clauses 1 and 2 in forensic detail. Despite having had the benefit of some very learned briefings from organisations working in the field, I heard him make some points that had not occurred to me or to them. I hope that he will be joining us on the Public Bill Committee in order to pursue those matters further.
I thank all Members for their contributions, and even though the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) did not speak in the debate other than to intervene, we felt his presence in the room. His articles in The Guardian and elsewhere really have hit the nail on the head and shown that, despite what some Members have said, there are very real concerns about the Bill. It always needs to be said when talking about the Lord Chancellor that he was a protégé of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, which we do not see very often these days. I am reminded of King Lear, rather than Edward Lear:
“How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child!”
Our primary concern with this Bill is that the proposals for judicial review are regressive and uncalled for, more especially when, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) set out, many aspects of the justice system are in a state of profound crisis—aspects that these measures do nothing to address and much to distract from.
The Ministry of Justice should be devoting all its efforts to tackling the record court backlog and working to restore women’s faith in the criminal justice system. We have heard several times today of the more than 60,000 outstanding Crown court cases, due in part to the shortage of practitioners, with proceedings delayed because barristers cannot be found to prosecute or defend, and the shortage of judges and recorders. The Lord Chancellor recently admitted that he cannot say  when the backlog will get back to pre-pandemic levels, but last week’s National Audit Office report enlightened him by suggesting that the backlog could still be 25% above pre-pandemic levels three years from now.
That is an important point. We often had this debate on the Justice Committee, and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that backlogs have risen and fallen under different Governments. I concede that point, but the important point is that when the backlogs were high under a Labour Government they were quickly addressed and quickly fell back to low levels. There is little sign at the moment that the Crown court backlog is coming under control or is likely to reduce to acceptable levels.
Rape prosecutions and convictions are at record lows, even as reports to the police rise steadily. The Government’s own review said that Ministers are deeply ashamed of this dire situation and pledge to get prosecutions and convictions back up to 2016 levels by the end of the Parliament, but the Prime Minister said during his party conference speech that he cannot guarantee the target will be met.
We have recently seen two excellent reports on legal aid by the Justice Committee and the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid, and the Minister and I attended the launch of the latter last week. The reports document the collapse in access to justice since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. In the face of this unprecedented crisis, what is the Government’s legislative priority? Why are we here today? This is another political attack on the judiciary.
Weakening judicial review and attacks on human rights legislation have formed predictable purple passages in the last few Tory manifestos. The previous Lord Chancellor was a half-hearted cheerleader. To his credit he was half-hearted, so he had to go. The noble Lord Faulks proved to be too much of a lawyer and too little of a politician, so his review was set aside and a second consultation staged, and now we have this Bill.
Although it is correct to say that some of the threatened intrusions on the judicial role have not yet materialised, although we have yet to see the new Lord Chancellor at full stretch, there is plenty of mischief in this Bill, with the hobbling of judicial review by prospective-only orders, the fettering of judicial discretion by presumptions in favour of prospective and suspended orders and the ousting of judicial intervention in Cart and perhaps other cases.
The false dichotomy that the Government wish to argue, as in the recent speech by the Attorney General, is that democracy and the rule of law are two opposing forces that need to be brought more into balance by weakening the latter. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are two sides of the same coin, or rather one provides the tracks on which the other can smoothly run.
This Government’s true motive is to escape accountability for malpractice. It is one of the defining features of this Government that they simply do not believe the same rules should apply to them as apply to everyone else, and that starts with the Prime Minister and works its way down. An unbiased observer—I offer myself for  this role—might say that the Government want to mute every avenue of accountability, from the BBC to the Freedom of Information Act and now the courts.
Specifically, the removal of the retrospective effect of a quashing order will have a chilling effect on judicial review. What is the point of the seeking of a remedy without redress? Victims of past unlawful state actions might not be compensated. Litigants who are similarly impacted before and after a judgment will be treated differently. Legal aid may be refused on the grounds that a remedy for past loss is not available. All in all, the Bill goes much further than the dry terminology of the statute suggests. It also goes further than the independent panel recommended: it saw no need for prospective-only orders and dismissed the idea of presumptions in favour of them.
As we have heard, the Bill will also abolish Cart judicial reviews, which are most often used in serious asylum and human rights cases but have also been used in welfare cases when someone was on the brink of being made destitute or homeless. That is the answer to the point about the fact that the success rate may not be among the highest—albeit it is still higher than the Government previously said it was—and the reason why there is a special reason for retaining such reviews. Those points have been made but they are, with respect, not good points, because Cart reviews are a last-gasp defence for some of the most vulnerable people in the most desperate situations. The Bill’s impact assessment concedes that, saying:
“The majority of Cart cases relate to Immigration and Asylum, therefore those who lose out…are more likely to have particular protected characteristics, for example in respect of race and/or religion or belief.”
Cart reviews are an important safeguard and there is already a high threshold for bringing them. Moreover, the original proposal was based on wrong data, as I have said. I agree that the estimate of the percentage varied from the clearly wrong 0.22%, to the 3% that the Government now maintain, to the nearly 6%—30 times the originally cited figure—on which a number of learned and informed sources have made submissions to us.
Let me give just one example—there will be time in Committee to give a lot more—of the type of case affected. G was trafficked into the UK from her home country of Nigeria. Traffickers in both countries had brutally mistreated her and subjected her to serious physical and sexual abuse. While she was in the UK, she gave birth to a child, whom she looked after alone. The Government did not dispute that G was a victim of trafficking, but a tribunal convened to decide what support and protection she ought to receive went beyond the statements of the parties and decided that she was not, in fact, a victim of any trafficking or exploitation. This meant that she could be removed from the UK and would have resulted in her falling back into her trafficker’s hands.
The Cart procedure was used to re-evaluate the decision before the High Court. The Court found that the tribunal had made a series of errors leading to
“elementary and serious breaches of the principles of procedural fairness”
and that, as such, its decision could not stand. The High Court ruled that G’s case was not only arguable and should have proceeded, but that it was “bound to succeed” based on the strength of her claim. Without  that ruling, the tribunal’s original “fundamentally flawed” ruling would have been put into effect, putting G and her child in the greatest danger imaginable. It is difficult to see why such a case should be refused the opportunity of legal remedy. That is certainly the opinion that the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and others have impressed on us in briefings, right up to and including today.
The Government’s statements on matters going beyond Cart suggest that the use of an ouster cause will serve as a template to abolish other types of judicial review in future.
The press release announcing the Bill stated that
“the legal text that removes the Cart judgment will serve as a framework that can be replicated in other legislation.”
That is quite chilling in itself. The Government would do better to heed the words of Lord Neuberger, former president of the Supreme Court, who said last week:
“Ouster clauses…which are intended to ensure a particular class of decision cannot be judicially reviewed, carry with them the inevitable implication that whoever has the protection of the ouster clause has the right to break the law with impunity”.
Perhaps with an eye on this latest legislative attempt to rein in our independent judiciary, he added that judicial review
“is what ensures that the executive arm of government keeps to the law and that individual rights are protected.”
Perhaps also the Conservative party is no longer a party of individual rights.
Part 2 contains a number of measures to increase the use of technology and online justice procedures, some of which, as I have said, have been rehashed from earlier legislation. The justice system has to adapt to new technologies, just as the rest of us do—some with more success than others—but technological change does not affect everyone in society equally. We cannot have a justice system where people are locked out because they do not have the means or the knowhow to navigate the digital frontier. We must make sure that this drive to digitisation leaves no one behind. Justice must never be sacrificed for efficiency.
If there is sufficient opportunity, for example, for taking advice on pleas to be heard before a tribunal for open justice, are corners being cut in the interests of rapid and economical disposal of cases? All those questions arise in revisions currently in part 2 of the Bill. We also have concerns around plans to set up an online procedure rules Committee. The Committee itself makes sense, but why, given that it is supposed to be a practical aid to practitioners, is it a creature of the Lord Chancellor, who merely has a duty to consult the Lord Chief Justice and the senior president of tribunals before making amendments to the rules?
The last major area of concern we have is in the provisions relating to coroners’ courts. Again, there is a danger that, in a rush to reduce unnecessary procedures and facilitate greater online participation, people who are less capable of navigating the new system will be excluded. There is nothing to address existing problems with the coroners’ service and, on Thursday, we be will debating the Justice Committee’s excellent report—I was a member of the Committee at the time—which raises a number of serious issues, including, in particular, the inequality of arms, as we have heard from many Members today, faced by many bereaved families who  are not entitled to legal aid at inquests where the state is representing. We can discuss that in Committee and we can discuss it on Thursday.
The peremptory response and dismissal of many of the Committee’s major recommendations is something that the Government should look at again. It is another example of why this Bill is not fit for purpose. There is too much focus on areas where the law works well, and too little where it is failing. Above all, it is an unforgiveable distraction at a time when all focus should be on getting the justice system back on an even keel. The Bill seeks to undermine the rights of the individual against the state and it looks like another attempt by this Government to stoke a political war with the judiciary—something that would be more recognisable in Hungary or Poland.
We can try to salvage the administrative good from the political bad as the Bill progresses through both Houses, but there is no way that any Member of this House who cares about the rule of law or the checks and balances of our constitution should be supporting this Bill on Second Reading tonight.

James Cartlidge: I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed today. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). He asked if he should be welcoming me to my place; I am grateful to him for that. I also welcome him. I know that he performed his role for many years, from 2010 to 2016, but it is good to see him back in his place. I look forward to debating with him.
This is my first opportunity to speak in the role of Courts Minister, so I want to take a moment to put on record my enormous gratitude to all those on the frontline in our court system, including our judiciary, practitioners, all court staff and clerks. They have all put in one hell of a shift during the pandemic to keep justice going in this country. It makes me proud to be British.
The one thing that I would stress, having visited the courts and seen how they have had to adapt, is just how much social distancing rules disrupted the judiciary. The 2-metre social distancing particularly affected juries in the Crown court. It has been very difficult. For that reason, a significant backlog has accumulated and we have been open about that. The key thing is that we have been active in bringing forward positive measures to address that backlog. We provided £250 million of funding during the pandemic, which enabled us to lift the limit on sitting days in the Crown court, and rapidly to roll out technology to keep justice going online during lockdown, which was incredibly important. Of course, we also brought forward our famous Nightingale courts, which have done an amazing job in helping us, particularly with bail cases.
This Bill plays its part in those positive steps to address the backlog. The common thread is streamlining justice: digitising in-person processes where appropriate; removing Cart judicial reviews, which use disproportionate resource; and enabling more triable either-way cases to be sent from the Crown court to the magistrates so that Crown courts have more capacity for dealing with very serious criminal trials, potentially including rape and murder. The Bill will build on the lessons of the pandemic. It streamlines our justice system by digitising a range of  procedures so that we bear down on the backlog and at the same time improve the day-to-day experience of our constituents in the court system.
We have had a wide-ranging debate. Inevitably, the focus has been on the measures on judicial review. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, made a wonderful speech, not least when he extolled the glories of English liberty. He said that the judicial review reforms are measured and focused, and I do not think that he would be described as an enemy of the judiciary or someone who supports revolutionary measures. These are sensible, proportionate measures.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), with whom I look forward to debating further, said that these measures weaken quashing orders. I take completely the opposite view. The measures strengthen quashing orders and thereby strengthen judicial review. The best way to prove that is to refer to an important and very real case study, which many hon. Members will remember, particularly those, like me, who served in the last Parliament and represent rural constituencies.
Members may recall the problems caused in 2019 when Natural England decided to revoke general licences for shotguns—shotguns that enabled farmers, landowners and gamekeepers to shoot pest birds. That happened in response to a threatened judicial review. The decision created immediate widespread chaos for licence holders, who were left without the necessary legal certainty as to how they could protect their livestock. I know this because I was on the receiving end of emails about the issue from my constituents, as many other hon. and right hon. Members will have been.
The uncertainty continued for a period of seven weeks, until Natural England was able to issue new licences. It is not for me to speculate about how the judicial review might have proceeded if it had gone right through the court. However, we can refer to the advice that might have been given to Natural England. Had the remedies included in clause 1 of this Bill been available at the time, we can suppose that Natural England might have been more willing to contest a judicial review in the knowledge that, even if the existing licence scheme were found by the court to be unlawful, the court had the ability to act prospectively—that is, to protect past reliance on old licences, which, after all, was made in good faith; farmers using those shotguns would have done so in the belief that they were acting lawfully.
In my view, we should always seek to avoid, where possible and without good reason, acting retrospectively when the person concerned could not possibly have known what the case would be in the future. A remedy of suspension could also have been used, because of course it took three months to bring forward the new licences. If the suspension had been for that sort of period of time, we could have avoided detriment. That is the point. Those who brought the case would still have got their “victory in court”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst talked about earlier, but the key point is that we would have spared our constituents detriment. That is why these measures are positive. That is why they support a very important principle of judicial review that has not been mentioned, which is better public administration of the law in the  best interests of our constituents. As the National Farmers Union said at the time, “People have been left without a legal means to control problem birds. Their inability to protect livestock, crops, wildlife and livelihoods in ways which the law has until now allowed has left them concerned and angry.” Now we would have a way to help them in practice.
Turning to Cart judicial reviews, again there was lots of passionate argument on this very important point of the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) made one of the most fundamental points about parliamentary sovereignty where we have to question whether it was the intention of this place to legislate so that appeals would go beyond what is effectively the superior court of appeal within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. We think that was not the case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) made an absolutely brilliant, barnstorming speech. On Friday she took apart Labour’s case for fire and rehire and today she has taken apart its case on Cart JR. She asked the very important question of why immigration should be the exception when so many other jurisdictions of law do not have, with no offence to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), three bites at the cherry. This is a very important point. The idea of having a superior court like the upper tribunal is absolutely consistent with the principles of article 13 of the European convention of human rights, so three bites at the cherry should not be needed to be consistent with that article of human rights. That is a fundamental point and we respect it with our reforms to judicial review.
Turning to the right hon. Member for Tottenham, he said that he was young and naive when he supported remarkably similar measures back in 2004. I think it would be remiss of us not to have two bites at the cherry with regard to Labour’s Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc. ) Act 2004. He may have been young and naive but the Prime Minister was Tony Blair, and he was not young and naive. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government led by Tony Blair thought they should bring forward a Bill like that—because it was some radical assault on the judiciary?
Let us remind ourselves of what that Act did. It contained a provision to remove judicial review from immigration and asylum appeals. That probably sounds a bit familiar. What was the justification? I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) is listening. The justification, as revealed by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee at that time, because he was the Minister concerned, was that only 3.6% of cases were successful. That was the argument that Labour used in 2003 and 2004: does it ring any bells? What was the method? The method was an ouster clause, but not any ordinary ouster clause—not a tightly drawn ouster clause like the one in this Bill—but an ouster clause drafted so widely that in Committee the then Constitutional Affairs Minister admitted that it was the mother of all ouster clauses. Who was the Constitutional Affairs Minister? It was the right hon. Gentleman.

David Lammy: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in his oration, because he was getting into his groove, but I would just say to him that it was dropped—it was never enacted, so poor it was.

James Cartlidge: They pulled it because they were going to get hammered in the House of Lords.
On Cart JR, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) seemed to imply that somehow an ouster clause is fundamentally against the interests of holding Government to account. Every day that this place is sitting, hon. and right hon. Members will stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents on serious matters. I once spoke in a debate on the Adjournment—the one where our former colleague spoke many times. I spoke on a very serious case in my constituency of a very vulnerable man who had had a stroke and had, I felt, been let down by a company in my constituency. I was able to name that company in this House and hold it to account, as we all do. On what legal basis was I able to do that? It was article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689—effectively a very ancient ouster clause that ensures that proceedings in this place are not subject to the courts, as you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We all benefit from an ouster clause, and it helps us to hold the Government to account.

Joanna Cherry: It was generously suggested earlier that the Minister might respond to my query about the impact of clause 2 on the treaty of Union and the Scotland Act 1998. It is a slightly complicated point, but if I write to him about it, will he get back to me, because it is a really important point? If the Law Society of Scotland is right, the Bill needs a legislative consent motion.

James Cartlidge: I have to be honest with the hon. and learned Lady: it is very kind of her to ask me to write to her, because that is what I would have suggested in my answer anyway. Speaking to her earlier question, we do not think a legislative consent motion is needed, because the Cart judicial review only covers reserved matters.
Coming quickly on to the online procedures, these are incredibly important. I know from my own business—we started doing mortgages online in 2005—that those procedures we are used to doing face-to-face can be conducted online, provided there is good software and safeguards and support in place. I refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan). He is a brilliant MP. He is my parents’ MP, and they tell me he is a fantastic campaigner. He asked, as did the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who was here earlier, what help would be provided for vulnerable users. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that we take that incredibly seriously. With all these procedures that will be taking place online, or at least where there is an option to go online, there will be strong support and safeguards in place, in particular to protect vulnerable users. In those key choices of, for example, entering an early plea online, there would always be the option for the person concerned to ask for their case to be heard in the flesh in the traditional way.
I have a few final points. We had a number of other excellent speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) served as a magistrate before coming to this place. We are all proud of the excellent work of our voluntary judiciary. A number of my hon. Friends, including my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), have been or are magistrates, as I assume  have Opposition Members. I would love to meet them to talk about what more we can do to support magistrates. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury praised the very important measures in the Bill, not least the measure that will ensure we can remit cases from the Crown court to the magistrates court. That is so important because it frees up time in the Crown court to hear those important criminal cases that are backlogged—the rapes, the murders and so on.
It is a great honour to be asked to become a Minister in the Department responsible for the world’s greatest justice system. It is so great is because of its fundamental core of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. If we are to sustain that system not just beyond covid recovery, but for the long term, we need to keep modernising our courts and to digitise and use technology as much as possible, while balancing that out with safeguards for the vulnerable. It is quite simple: with this Bill we can build back better and beat the backlog. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 220.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND COURTS BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7))
That the following provisions shall apply to the Judicial Review and Courts Bill:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 23 November 2021.
3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND COURTS BILL (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Lord Chancellor; and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6))

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1073), a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 September, be approved.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Electrification of the Hull to Selby railway line

Diana R. Johnson: I rise to present a petition from Hull North constituents and others signing online at change.org.
Hull is a city of ambition, aspiration and enterprise—we are the energy estuary, a freeport and a recent UK city of culture—but that has not been reflected in our worsening rail services. Tomorrow’s spending review, and the integrated rail plan expected in November, will show whether the Government are serious about levelling up the whole of the north and about green transport ahead of COP26. Hull’s MPs have also written to Ministers setting out seven tests on levelling up for transport.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to prioritise the rail electrification of the Hull-Selby line and the upgrading of the railway line between Sheffield and Hull via Goole by inclusion in the forthcoming Integrated Rail Plan.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that rail links to Hull are among the poorest in the north of England; further that the current train service reliability of 60 per cent or lower means it is quicker to travel to Leeds by road; further that the Humberside economy is increasingly supplying renewable energy but poor rail connections to Hull and the port do not encourage sustainable transport choices; further that electrifying the Leeds to Hull route via Selby, and significantly upgrading the railway line between Sheffield and Hull via Goole, will permit cleaner, faster and more reliable trains to run in and out of Hull; further that this will provide an electrified railway from east to west and allow freight to cross coast to coast more efficiently; and notes that the Government has committed to a carbon neutral economy by 2050.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to prioritise the rail electrification of the Hull-Selby line and the upgrading of the railway line between Sheffield and Hull via Goole by inclusion in the forthcoming Integrated Rail Plan.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002694]

Child Sexual Exploitation: Bradford

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Scott Mann.)

Robbie Moore: Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you and Mr Speaker for granting this urgent debate on child sexual exploitation in Keighley and across the Bradford district.
Child sexual exploitation is abhorrent, but I am afraid that the issue is being swept under the carpet. Local government leaders and people in positions of influence have a duty of care to protect the most vulnerable in society—our young children, women and girls. People need to open their eyes to this issue. We know that young children remain at risk. It is about time that we tackled these horrific, vile and criminal activities once and for all.
In my mind, in order to move forward, it is vital that we call this issue out for what it is, hold those authorities that have failed our communities for far too long to account, grasp the scale of the problem, understand its complexities—the hierarchy, the methodology and the chain of command that sits behind these darkest and most vile acts—and get to grips with how and why communities such as the one that I proudly represent in Keighley have been allowed, under the watch of so many, to be haunted by gang-related child sexual exploitation for far too long. If we do not address these issues properly, openly and with a real willingness to deal with them, those at the centre of all this—our young children—will continue to be let down, to be targeted, and to be exploited and sexually abused by the worst individuals our society knows.
It has now been more than 20 years since the former Member of Parliament for Keighley, Ann Cryer, first very publicly raised her concerns about grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation in the Pakistani community in my constituency. Ann deserves enormous credit for her work talking about this very difficult subject, but I am afraid that in that time, nothing has really changed. No real progress has been made in dealing with this issue across Keighley and the wider Bradford district.
I am incredibly conscious of just how delicate this subject is, but we should not be frightened of talking about it. My view is that unless we talk openly, we are failing. So let us call this problem out for what it is: predominantly a small minority of largely Pakistani Muslim men in West Yorkshire—including, I am sad to say, in Keighley and across the Bradford district—who have been sexually exploiting young children for far too long. The Pakistani community are quite rightly outraged that the entire community is being branded with the same accusation. That is not fair and it is deeply offensive.

Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech and rightly shining a light on, frankly, an absolute abdication of responsibility by the authorities in his constituency. Does he agree that if the Government are serious about tackling male sexual violence against women and girls, it is absolutely imperative that we tackle cultural practices where we find them?

Robbie Moore: I absolutely agree with the points my hon. Friend makes so eloquently. Let us be absolutely clear: I have had to bring this debate to the Chamber  because, as a representative of Keighley in the Bradford district, I am experiencing those points: failure by our local council and failure by our new West Yorkshire Mayor —who is lucky enough to be in a new position, in charge of West Yorkshire police—to tackle these issues head on.

Robert Goodwill: This issue was first brought to light in Rotherham. At that time, many organisations such as the police and the council felt that they were maybe being racist by tackling it because it involved one particular community. Is that still a problem, or has that been cleared up?

Robbie Moore: This is a very delicate subject and I am acutely conscious of that. I must admit that I am nervous talking about it, but we have to address these issues. Every community across the country is different, including mine, but we have to look at the common denominator. I want to be very clear that this is not about race or pitching communities against each other. It is about looking at the facts, so we can address them head on and move forward.

Philip Davies: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for giving way. I commend him for bringing forward this debate and for all the work he is doing locally to shine a light on this issue. Does he agree that this is about the victims and ensuring they get the justice they deserve, and ensuring there are no future victims of this terrible crime? Does he agree that if Bradford Council and the authorities there will not bring forward a much needed inquiry—partly because, presumably, it will expose huge amounts of wrongdoing on their part—the Government should make sure that we have an inquiry, so that we can get to the bottom of what has gone wrong and make sure it never, ever happens again?

Robbie Moore: I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for making those points. We must never forget who is at the centre of this debate and who is experiencing these horrific, vile acts. I will come on to some of the alarming and horrific cases experienced by many young girls across my constituency and the wider Bradford district. We need to be absolutely clear that local leaders, Bradford Council and our new West Yorkshire Mayor should be using their position to call this issue out for what it is; be clear about taking these issues forward; and be wanting to get behind resolving these issues. My view is very clear: we need a Rotherham-style inquiry to address these issues. Finally, on his point about influence from a national level going down to local leaders, I very much hope to use this opportunity to encourage the Government to use their weight to put pressure on Bradford Council and our new West Yorkshire Mayor to do the right thing.

Lee Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this subject to the Chamber. It is very, very important. Does he agree that the only way we will know the full scale of these vile crimes in Bradford is for a full Rotherham-type investigation? Does he also agree that certain local politicians on the council and the West Yorkshire Mayor should hang their heads in shame?

Robbie Moore: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We need to understand the scale of the problem across the Bradford district, and I will come on to that later in  my speech. Only this summer, in July, a light, limited, 50-page review was released, and Bradford Council and our new West Yorkshire Mayor feel that that is acceptable. We need a full Rotherham-style inquiry to look at this, so that we can get real learnings and provide reassurance for victims.

Lucy Allan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being brave enough to bring this matter forward with such passion and such force. May I suggest that he works closely with the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who has been a huge support to me in tackling these issues? Local councils do not want to have inquiries. My local council vigorously opposed an inquiry, and when we eventually succeeded in getting one, with great help from the then Home Secretary, it ambushed the inquiry by deluging it with 1 million documents. Four years on, the victims in my constituency who came to me for a solution have not had their inquiry. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to go for a Rotherham-style inquiry, which was effective and delivered what it needed to—justice for victims.

Robbie Moore: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree with the points she makes. She kindly made reference to my hon. Friend—if I may say so—the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). This is one of the most important debates that we must have in this House, but when I look at the Opposition Benches, I see that she is the only hon. Member who has turned up to the debate. That speaks volumes. I thank her for coming along; it is exceptionally kind. I agree that yes, we must have a full Rotherham-style inquiry to get to grips with the issue, because I certainly do not want it to continue to be swept under the carpet.
I want to make the point that this is not about race or pitting communities against each other; it is about looking at the facts so that we can address them and move forward. Of course it is about looking at that common denominator, but it is no different from identifying other common denominators when looking at child sexual exploitation, such as we have seen in inquiries on similar subjects—regarding the Catholic church, for example. The reality is that we must understand the complexities that relate to a community so that we can move forward.
The consequences of not acting are extremely serious. If we tiptoe around the edges or fail to talk openly about these challenges, we fail both the victims and the Pakistani community. Those victims, mainly young girls, are having their lives ruined at a young age by vile and disgusting sexual abuse, and it is all being done while authorities, including Bradford Council and West Yorkshire police, turn a blind eye and fail to take action year after year.

Robert Goodwill: Is it not the case that many of those girls will either be in the care of the local authorities, as looked-after children, or come from families that social workers are closely engaging with?

Robbie Moore: My right hon. Friend makes a worrying and accurate intervention, because that is absolutely the case. Most of the young girls we are talking about, as I will come on to later in my speech, are the very girls who are in protective care of the authorities that should be looking after them.

Sarah Atherton: A mark of a good society is how we protect our most vulnerable. I trained as a social worker in Liverpool in 2000, and anecdotally we knew that institutional cover-ups were going on because people were too afraid to do anything. I urge my hon. Friend to go forth and continue with this campaign; I know he will see personal repercussions for it, but I am fully behind him.

Robbie Moore: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind intervention. As representatives, we are all elected to do the very best for our community and call out the difference between what is right and what is wrong. This is not a political issue; it is about doing the right thing to stand up for our communities.
This summer, a limited review, which focused on just five children who had been sexually abused over the past 20 years in the Bradford district, was published. It makes horrifying reading. Let me tell the House about Anna—not her real name—who is mentioned in the review. She was repeatedly sexually abused by gangs of men while she was in care. The review says that when she was 15, she had an Islamic marriage with her abuser, and her social worker attended the ceremony.
Ruby—not her real name—had a disrupted childhood, which included the death of her mother when Ruby was a very young child. At the age of 13, Ruby was identified as being at risk of child sexual abuse. Throughout her childhood, she experienced 14 different placements in looked-after care. She was sexually abused, and the report identifies that childcare services in Bradford
“did not keep her safe.”
The limited review published in the summer is only a 50-page document. To my mind, it reflects only the tip of the iceberg of what has been going on across the Bradford district. In 2016, a group of 12 men who committed serious sexual offences against two young girls from Keighley and Bradford were jailed for a collective 132 years. One of those girls was raped by five men in succession. Live cases involving grooming gangs are still working their way through the courts. Only last October, 21 men from Keighley and Bradford were arrested after being linked to offences that allegedly occurred against a young girl between 2001 and 2009.
Decisive action is needed if we are to deal with the issue. That is why we need a full, independent Rotherham-style inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Keighley and the wider Bradford district.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I commend him for everything he says. Is it not shocking that the leader of Bradford Council, Susan Hinchcliffe, has said that we should not have a Rotherham-style inquiry in Bradford because it “won’t find anything new”? Is that not shocking complacency on the part of the leader of Bradford Council? If the council has nothing to hide, it would have nothing to fear from such an inquiry; we could all know once and for all exactly what has happened, satisfy ourselves that there is nothing to hide, and make sure that nothing like this ever happens again. Is her attitude not terrible and complacent? Does it not show complete disregard for the victims?

Robbie Moore: I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for his kind intervention. He eloquently makes a crucial point: the leader of Bradford Council is in a unique  position to trigger a Rotherham-style inquiry. I do not understand what the council, or others such as our new West Yorkshire Mayor, should have to fear from being more open and transparent or from wanting to move things forward in the best interests of victims across our constituencies and the wider Bradford district.
How do we get there? How do we instigate a full Rotherham-style inquiry? As happened in Rotherham, Bradford Council can and should appoint an independent chair such as Professor Alexis Jay to conduct an independent inquiry into its handling, and associated agencies’ handling, of child sexual exploitation over the past 20 years.
We need to learn lessons locally to find out what has been going wrong with institutions such as Bradford Council, West Yorkshire police and Bradford’s child protection services. Believe me, they need addressing. Bradford’s children’s services department is in a state of chaos. In 2018 it was rated by Ofsted as inadequate, needing severe improvement. Only this summer the Government had to step in and put a commissioner in charge of the department to look at it, and only this week a further Ofsted report was released: it was incredibly damning, stating that no improvement was taking place at a sufficient pace.

Philip Davies: Is it not telling, given all these failings of children’s services at Bradford Council, that council leaders never take responsibility for those failings? There is a merry-go-round of children’s services directors being fired and hired, while the people at the top of the council never accept responsibility for the failings that occur on their watch.

Robbie Moore: Leaders of any organisation have a responsibility to do the right thing. It is unfortunate that Bradford’s children’s services department has been on the watch of not only the current council leader, but the same chief executive who has presided over those children’s services since 2015—yet here we are in 2021 with the Government having to step in and do the right thing.
In August, as I have said, a damning report was produced, and that is why Bradford Council needs to stop sweeping this issue under the carpet and launch a full, independent, Rotherham-style inquiry. I will settle for nothing less. As Anna—one of the victims I talked about earlier—said:
“What victims need is a full inquiry, if Rotherham had one, why are we denying it to the thousands of children here in Bradford.”
I have received endless pieces of correspondence asking why so little has been done to tackle child sexual exploitation over the past 20-plus years across the Bradford district. Since I was elected, less than two years ago, I have raised this issue repeatedly, both locally and here in the House. I am raising it again today, and I will continue to raise it. I will not let this issue drop. I was even told that by continuing to raise it I was stoking racial tensions, but that is the nub of this issue. It is not being dealt with. This has nothing to do with stoking racial tensions. It is about the difference between right and wrong, and fundamentally it is about protecting young children.
Those in positions of responsibility need to have the guts to take action. Too many people in positions of responsibility have ducked this issue for decades. Take my predecessor, John Grogan, who said: that an inquiry would not
“be in the best interests of young people.”
Our new West Yorkshire Mayor Tracy Brabin, the former Member of Parliament for Batley and Spen, is now in charge of policing in West Yorkshire. She is in a perfect position to show leadership and tackle this issue once and for all.

Lee Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again: he is being very generous with his time. Does he agree that once the inquiry takes place and we get to the bottom of this, and the grooming gangs are put away—in prison, where they rightly belong—the next call will be these lazy politicians? They need locking up too.

Robbie Moore: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I sincerely share his frustration that local leaders are not taking this seriously.
The person that our new West Yorkshire Mayor has put in charge of policing says that this is not a Bradford problem. Let us look across this House. Do most Members represent communities where the local council has missed “clear signs” of child sexual exploitation? Do most Members represent communities where the local children’s services department has just been taken over by the Government, who have stepped in and put a commissioner in charge, and has been the subject of two consecutive very damning Ofsted reports? Do most Members represent communities where children remain unprotected and continue to be sexually exploited? No, they do not. The Bradford district is haunted by these problems and we need to tackle them head on.
This issue has gone on for many years, and of course the administrations at Bradford Council have changed. MPs have changed. However, those who are now in positions of responsibility need to take action. In my view, it is shocking that in responding to calls for a full, independent Rotherham-style inquiry, the leader of Bradford Council, Susan Hinchcliffe, said that an inquiry
“would not be of additional value”
and that she had been “personally hurt” by my comments. This is not personal. This is about calling on those who are in a position of responsibility to do the right thing. If we continue in limbo and fail to take action, the very worst of humanity will exploit this issue for their own gain. Sadly, this happened in my constituency in 2005 when the British National party made Keighley its No. 1 target seat in the parliamentary election. It came into our town, bombarded it with leaflets, held rallies and inflamed racial tensions.
We need to think about the victims in all this: those who have been let down by the very organisations that should have been there to protect them. For Bradford Council, the police and our new West Yorkshire Mayor simply to hang their hat on a limited 50-page review that looked at only five children who had experienced these horrendous events is weak. We must never forget who is at the heart of these conversations. It is the children, the young victims, who have been let down for years by the very organisations that are there to protect them. All of us who are in positions of responsibility have a duty to do the right thing.
In conclusion, here are the facts. Child sexual exploitation is, sadly, a big problem in Keighley and the Bradford district. It has been for many years. It is an abhorrent, disgusting and vile issue, and it needs addressing, especially in the light of the limited review published earlier this year that leaves us with far more questions than answers.  Local leaders must stop sweeping this issue under the carpet and tackle it head on. They must open their eyes. I will not let this drop. We need an independent, Rotherham-style inquiry so that we can look at what has gone wrong in the past and ensure that these vile abuses come to an end. We need to reinstall trust in these authorities by the victims, their families and the wider public who have been let down by them. So let us get this done and let us make our community much safer for our children.

Rachel Maclean: I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) most sincerely for securing this debate and all other Members for their contributions this evening. I commend my hon. Friend for his perseverance and for his powerful speech, which cannot have been easy for him to stand up in the House and deliver. He has given a voice to people who have been voiceless for far too long. It was shocking, disgusting and appalling to hear the harrowing testimony that he set out for us this evening. None of us can listen to these accounts without being impacted and horrified. It is truly shocking to hear of the cases set out in the recent review in Bradford. These are instances of the most vulnerable in our society being preyed upon and abused by ruthless criminals, and the review makes for distressing reading. These children experienced multiple traumas, in most cases starting long before they were victims of sexual exploitation, at a time when they should have been nurtured and protected. Aged as young as 13, what they went through is almost too horrific to contemplate. I am sure all hon. Members will want to join me in paying tribute to them and to all victims of sexual abuse and exploitation who have bravely come forward to share their experiences, which cannot be easy, to drive change and ensure other children do not go through the same ordeal.
I thank my hon. Friends and hon. Members on both sides of the House who attended this debate and spoke about their experience in their constituency, their lived experience and the considerable expertise they gained in professional fields before coming to this place.
I reassure all victims and survivors that their voices are being heard. We are listening. Across central and local government, law enforcement, the wider criminal justice system and society as a whole, we have a clear responsibility to do everything in our power to protect children from harm, and we are determined to put victims and survivors at the heart of our approach while relentlessly pursuing the perpetrators of these awful crimes.
Since the early 2000s, when several of these horrific cases took place, there have been significant improvements in how local authorities and the police safeguard children in Bradford and across the country, but there is much further to go, as we have heard at first hand from my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend calls for an independent inquiry in Bradford, similar to the one in Rotherham. I acknowledge the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who is in her place, and pay tribute to her for all the work she has done. She battled determinedly for many years to give voice to victims in Rotherham and elsewhere.
The independent inquiry in Rotherham was conducted by Alexis Jay and commissioned by Rotherham Borough Council. This Government are crystal clear that it is for  local authorities in individual towns and cities such as Bradford, as they are responsible for delivering services, to commission local inquiries. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has set out with great clarity the mechanisms that are available to local authorities, including in Bradford, to trigger an inquiry. The Government fully agree with his remarks. He is right in every word of what he says. The options are available to Bradford Council and other authorities. I say it again, in case there is any doubt: local authorities have a responsibility, a moral responsibility, to do the right thing. I underline that point, lest there be any doubt: they have a moral responsibility to protect these innocent children.

Sarah Champion: I have been listening intently to this debate, and I am grateful the subject has been raised in the House. An inquiry is not a silver bullet. We actually had two inquiries in Rotherham, and one was commissioned by the Government, so that is an option for this Government. Once the inquiry has happened, we need to see the support in place for survivors to rebuild their lives. We need to see prosecutions of the criminals and of anyone who colluded or did not act in their job. I hope the Minister will do all in her power to make sure that happens across the country.

Rachel Maclean: I thank the hon. Lady for her point. She is entirely right that a whole-system response is required so that victims can rebuild their lives. I shall touch on that further later on in my speech.
I recognise the pain and trauma endured by those who have suffered at the hands of these vile criminals, and I understand their need for answers to the failures and for reassurance that the system that let them down so badly will not do so again. I welcome Bradford Council’s work to improve its response to child sexual abuse and exploitation by identifying poor practice through the recent review, but I also expect the council to listen close to the real concerns expressed by Members this evening and to take the most thoroughgoing approach to ensuring that all lessons have been learned and that local partners are doing everything possible to identify child sexual abuse and exploitation and protect children from harm, without letting political and cultural sensitivities deter them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley spoke about the groups committing these crimes in the Bradford area and the need to recognise their common characteristics. The Government are clear that child sexual exploitation happens in all areas of the country and can take many different forms. We know that it is not exclusive to any single culture, community, race or religion, but community and cultural factors are very relevant to the understanding and tackling of offending in each local area, as my hon. Friend set out so eloquently. Let me repeat that political and cultural sensitivities must not deter agencies from uncovering and preventing such devastating crimes. Every local authority must ensure that children are safeguarded, and every police force has a duty to investigate effectively and thoroughly when children come to harm.

Lucy Allan: Does the Minister agree that child sex abuse and child sexual exploitation are different crimes and that the police should not include them jointly and make assumptions based on the outcomes of their  doing so? If they put them together, they end up saying that it is a white crime. I had to battle hard against anybody saying that it is not about taking into account the cultural factors because it was all bunched together. They would then also say that it just happens at home, domestically. It is important to take on board the fact that grooming and street grooming are different from child sexual abuse in a domestic setting.

Rachel Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend very much for making that point based on her considerable experience and incredible commitment in respect of the issues that she has been tackling in Telford. I shall talk about the collection of data and the analysis of types of crimes and of perpetrators and victims. She is right that that is at the heart of what we must do to improve our response, which is why the Home Office is committed to improving the collection and analysis of data. In March this year, the Home Secretary introduced a new requirement for police forces to collect ethnicity data for those arrested and held in custody as a result of their suspected involvement in group-based child sexual exploitation. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the complexity of these crimes and the need for us to fully understand them in order that we may root them out.
As a Government, we are further supporting local areas to understand and tackle the threat in their areas by funding the prevention programme delivered by the Children’s Society. Co-ordinators in each of the 10 policing regions are delivering tailored interventions based on police intelligence, to improve collaboration and help to identify specific threats in each region. The programme has led to the increased identification of victims. We are funding regional child sexual abuse and exploitation analysts in every policing region, as well as a pilot project on tackling organised exploitation, which is developing a system to bring together intelligence at local, regional and national level, thereby improving analysis and tasking so that police throughout the country can understand and respond more effectively.
Nationally, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse is demanding accountability for past failings and making practical recommendations to ensure that children are given the protection that they need. A report on child sexual exploitation by organised networks is expected this autumn, with a final report due in 2022. We will continue to carefully consider all the inquiry’s recommendations to ensure that real and permanent change is delivered in how children are safeguarded.
Work is already under way to take action now. Earlier this year, we published a tackling child sexual abuse strategy, setting out how we are driving action across every part of Government, across all agencies and sectors and with charities, communities, technology companies and society more widely. In the beating crime plan, we have reaffirmed our strong commitment to delivering increased reporting of these crimes to the police, increased numbers of offenders brought to justice, improved victim care and support, which was raised rightly by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and an overall fall in the prevalence of these offences.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3))
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Scott Mann.)

Rachel Maclean: As I was saying, it is vital that more of these complex crimes end in prosecutions and convictions to secure justice for victims. To support this, we are ensuring that the complexity and sensitivities of child sexual abuse investigations are understood by policing leaders through the College of Policing’s training for senior officers on issues of safeguarding and public protection. We fund the police’s vulnerability knowledge and practice programme, which identifies and promotes best practice, ensuring that the most effective approaches to investigating these crimes and safeguarding victims are taken up by forces across the country.

Robert Goodwill: Does the Minister recognise that, where girls are over the age of 16 and can give consent, sadly, many of them are being gaslighted and forced into this activity? It is much more difficult for the police to get a prosecution and for the Crown Prosecution Service to take action because, sometimes, these girls do not see themselves as victims, despite the fact that their lives are being controlled by some of these people.

Rachel Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight how difficult these crimes are for us as a society to tackle, but it highlights that we desperately need to tackle them, which is why the Government have set out a number of priorities through the domestic abuse strategy and the violence against women and girls strategy, backed by considerable funding and resources to ensure that we can tackle them where they occur. It is vital that we have close collaboration between agencies, and that forms a key part of our strategy.
The Children and Social Work Act 2017 introduced the most significant reforms in a generation, requiring local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and chief officers of police to form multi-agency safeguarding partnerships. All the new partnerships were in place by September 2019.
Our prevention work has already yielded improvements in Bradford. Through the £13.2 million trusted relationships fund, for example, Bradford Metropolitan District Council has received funding to deliver one-to-one, school-based community support for children aged 10 to 14 years who are at risk of exploitation.

Sarah Champion: In 2017, the Government agreed to bring in mandatory relationship education for every child from primary school onwards. That is teaching them about healthy and unhealthy relationships—what is in your pants is your business and no one else’s. That has still not been rolled out. By the time these children get to 10 to 14, it is too late for many of them. Can the Minister please urge her colleagues to make this mandatory in every school, as was committed to in 2017?

Rachel Maclean: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Her concern has been heard by those Ministers in Government Departments who are responsible for delivering on this. But I can also tell her that, in part of the work that we are doing in the violence against women and girls strategy, we are recognising the vital  issue of communicating to people, including men, about how they need to behave towards women and girls because surely we cannot expect this problem to be solved by women and girls. It has to be solved by all people.

Philip Davies: I thank the Minister for her strong words earlier in her speech, saying that Bradford Council should have a full, Rotherham-style inquiry. I hope that has been heard loud and clear. The Government already know the failings of children’s services across the Bradford district and have felt the need to step in, so, in the continuing failure of Bradford Council to hold such an inquiry, may I urge her to play her part in ensuring that this Rotherham-style inquiry for Bradford takes place, with or without the support of Bradford Council?

Rachel Maclean: I expect nothing less from my hon. Friend than for him to ask me to strengthen my commitment and do everything that I can as Safeguarding Minister and part of the Home Office—no doubt, with the support of the Home Secretary—to make sure that Bradford Council does what it should be doing, what is its moral responsibility and what is in its power to do. As I have said and I do not mind saying again before I wind up this debate, my hon. Friend can be sure that I will continue to follow this vital matter with a huge amount of close interest, because we all have a moral duty to safeguard the victims, who have been voiceless for too long.
I sincerely thank all Members who have contributed this evening. We have heard contributions from the hon. Member for Rotherham, my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies), for Telford (Lucy Allan), for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill). Forgive me if I have omitted anybody; I am sure the good people of Hansard will fill it in.
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you very much indeed for allowing us the time for this vital debate on an utterly appalling crime that is taking place in our society. In my role as Minister for Safeguarding, I am determined to ensure that we confront these crimes wherever and whenever they occur, and whoever is perpetrating them. I once more put on record the thanks of the whole House to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, for his commitment, courage and determination. I very much hope that people in Bradford are watching tonight’s debate and will consider the next steps.

Eleanor Laing: That was a powerful debate. The whole House clearly wants action to occur now. It is not often that we are all in such agreement.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.